country-of-origin effect on coffee purchase by italian consumers

Transcription

UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS
MASTER’S THESIS
COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN EFFECT ON COFFEE PURCHASE BY
ITALIAN CONSUMERS
Ljubljana, March 2016
COK ALENKA
AUTHORSHIP STATEMENT
The undersigned Alenka COK, a student at the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of
Economics, (hereafter: FELU), declare that I am the author of the master’s thesis entitled
CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR IN THE ITALIAN COFFEE MARKET:
COO EFFECT ON CONSUMER PURCHASE INTENTIONS, written under
supervision of full professor Tanja Dmitrović, PhD.
In accordance with the Copyright and Related Rights Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of
Slovenia, Nr. 21/1995 with changes and amendments) I allow the text of my master’s thesis to
be published on the FELU website. I further declare that:





the text of my master’s thesis to be based on the results of my own research;
the text of my master’s thesis to be language-edited and technically in adherence with
the FELU’s Technical Guidelines for Written Works which means that I
o cited and / or quoted works and opinions of other authors in my master’s thesis
in accordance with the FELU’s Technical Guidelines for Written Works and
o obtained (and referred to in my master’s thesis) all the necessary permits to use
the works of other authors which are entirely (in written or graphical form)
used in my text;
to be aware of the fact that plagiarism (in written or graphical form) is a criminal
offence and can be prosecuted in accordance with the Criminal Code (Official Gazette
of the Republic of Slovenia, Nr. 55/2008 with changes and amendments);
to be aware of the consequences a proven plagiarism charge based on the submitted
bachelor thesis / master’s thesis / doctoral dissertation could have for my status at the
FELU in accordance with the relevant FELU Rules on Master’s Thesis.
Ljubljana, __________________ Author’s signature: ________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………….1
1 COO IN THE CONSUMER BUYING DECISION PROCESS………………………....3
1.1 Consumer’s buying decision process………………………………………………3
1.2 COO in the evaluation process…………………………………………………….5
1.3 COO recognition…………………………………………………………………...9
1.3.1 COO cognitive perspective……………………………………………..11
1.3.2 COO affective perspective……………………………………………..11
1.3.3 COO normative perspective…………………………………………….12
1.4 Made in Italy……………………………………………..……………………... 13
2 THE COFFEE MARKET……………………………………………..………………….15
2.1 The global coffee market……………………………………………..…………...15
2.1.1 Coffee production and exports……………………………………….....17
2.1.2 Coffee imports and consumption…………………………………….....19
2.1.3 Coffee historical background and market regulations………………….22
2.1.4 The COO and the production process………………………………......24
2.1.4.1 Coffee supply………………………………………………….24
2.1.4.2 The coffee production process………………………………..25
2.1.4.3 Coffee distribution…………………………………………....26
2.1.5 Preparing the coffee drinks and coffee types…………………………...27
2.2 The Italian coffee market……………………….………………………….……..29
2.2.1 Espresso…………………………………..……………………………..31
2.2.2 Foreign companies in the Italian coffee market…………………..…….33
3 THE EMPIRICAL STUDY……………………………………………..………………...34
3.1 Qualitative research……………………………………………..………………...35
3.1.1 Focus group’s results…………………………………………………….35
3.1.2 Summary of focus group findings………………………………………41
3.2 Survey among coffee consumers…..…………………………………………………42
3.2.1 Research hypotheses and conceptual model……………………………42
3.2.2 Quantitative research methodology…………………………………….45
3.2.3 Questionnaire design and data collection………………………………47
3.2.4 Survey’s results…………………………………………………………48
3.2.4.1 Sample characteristics………………………………………...48
3.2.4.2 Reliability of measurement scales……………………………51
3.2.4.3 Hypotheses testing……………………………………………54
3.2.5 Summary of quantitative research findings…………………………….57
3.3 Managerial implication………………………………………………………………59
3.4 Limitations and suggestions for future research………………………………….60
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………...60
REFERENCE LIST ……………………………………………………………………………...62
APPENDIXES
i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Buyer decision process…………………………………………………………………..3
Figure 2. Coffee production distribution, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 comparison…………...16
Figure 3. Global production and global trade from 1990 to present (in million 60 kg bags)...17
Figure 4. Top 10 countries’ production and export quantities in 2013/2014 (in million 60 kg
bags)………………………………………………………………………………..18
Figure 5. Major European Union’s importers in 2013/2014 (in million 60 kg bags)………...20
Figure 6. Percentage of world consumption from 1993 to 2013……………………………..21
Figure 7. Coffee consumption per capita in kg in 2013………………………………………22
Figure 8. Conceptual model of domestic purchase behaviour………………………………..43
Figure 9. Coffee’s COO recognition…………………………………………………………51
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Top 10 coffee production countries in 2013/2014…………………………………..18
Table 2. COnsumption per country in 2013/2014 (in million 60 kg bags)…………………...21
Table 3. Italy’s import, consuption and re-export in 2013/2014……………………………..29
Table 4. Operationalization of studied constructs…………………………………………….46
Table 5. Demographic characteristics of respondents………………………………………..49
Table 6. Coffee drinking habits of respondents………………………………………………50
Table 7. Factor loadings and reliability for the constructs…..………………………………..52
Table 8. Regression analysis results for purchasing behaviour of domestic coffee products...54
Table 9. Results of t-test for Hypothesis 5a and ANOVA for Hypotheses H5b, H5c, H5d and
H5e…………………………………………………………………………………56
H6e…………………………………………………………………………………57
H7e…………………………………………………………………………………57
Table 12. Hypothesis testing results………………………………………………………….58
ii
INTRODUCTION
The amount of available goods in the market today is infinite. Within the same product
category, consumers can choose from a broad range of alternatives in all types of shape,
colors, price, quality and origin (Aziz, Bahadur, Sarwar, Farooq & Arshad, 2014).
Among the many cues that differentiate one product from the other, the country of origin
(COO) has a strong relevance in the moment of product evaluation (Ahmed et al., 2004; Chu,
Chang, Chen, & Wang, 2010; Martìn & Cerviño, 2011). The country of origin refers to a
territory, area or region that is intertwined with the creation, manufacturing, planning and the
design of a product or service, and is sometimes equaled with the term “made in”
(Nagashima, 1970). The term is broad and so is also the meaning that COO has for the
consumers.
In the first part of the thesis I will concentrate on the different theoretical concepts that are
relevant to this study, explaining the evolution of the COO and the influence it has in the
purchasing decisions. In literature there is distinction between the cognitive, affective and
normative perspectives connected to the COO. For the cognitive perspective, previous
experience with the country the product originates from or the knowledge and perceptions
that consumers have of it are used to infer on an unknown product’s quality (Chu et al.,
2010). Consumers are more likely to purchase products manufactured by countries having a
good reputation for producing them and to not consider products manufactured by countries
that doesn’t have it (Roth & Romeo, 1992). Therefore in the evaluation process, for each
product there can either be a positive or negative COO effect. The COO effect will not
depend just on the effective perceived quality image of the country, but also on consumers’
feelings connected to it. Consumers around the world grow up in different environments, with
different cultures and external influences, that contributes to make them perceive COO
differently. Scholars that took in consideration the so-called affective and normative
perspective, list the level of consumer ethnocentrism (Aziz et al., 2014), socio-economic
status, demographics (Samiee, Shimp, & Sharma, 2005) and patriotism (Vida & Reardon,
2008) as examples of elements that shape the consumer’s character and influence his decision.
The difference in valuation is also pertinent to the product’s category as well as specific
product level. A country could have a negative COO for a certain category or specific product
and a positive COO for another. Transforming a negative COO in a positive one takes time
and effort, but the result is a higher competitive advantage for companies. In the same way, a
positive COO can be easily transformed in a negative one (Nagashima, 1970).
My thesis proposes to examine whether the elements just described can have an influence on
the buying decision of consumers in a specific market, Italy, when purchasing a specific
product, coffee. In the second part of the thesis I will present the coffee industry in detail,
focusing on the Italian coffe market, its coffee culture and consumers’ drinking habits. Italian
consumers take pride in domestic manufactured products and are usually more inclined to buy
domestic coffee. Italy is one of the countries where COO, operationalized with the Made in
1
Italy cue, has a big value for local firms. Although the Italian market is dominated extensively
by small or medium sized enterprises (SMEs), these are based on long manufacturing
traditions and crafting skills that were handed down from one generation to another
(Grandinetti, 2011; Mattia, 2004). The Italian handmade production represents a competitive
advantage for Italian SMEs entering the international market where large enterprises operate
(Nanut & Tracogna, 2003). In other words, Italian companies on the international markets can
take advantage of the positive COO effects associated with Italian products. The Made in
Italy, that is connected to a multitude of products, such as clothes, footwear, food, furniture
and much more, is a powerful label that is making Italian brands to be recognized and
differentiated around the world. Coffee is one of these products. Italian companies selling
abroad can therefore rely extensively on the positive COO effect also for their coffee sales.
Coffee is after oil the second most traded good in the world (Qun, Shafi, Afzal & Nazir,
2014). In 2012 Italy was the 3rd coffee importer in the world, after US and Germany,
importing approximately 8.7 million bags of coffee, and 4th re-exporter, after Germany, US
and Belgium, with approximately 3 million 60 kg bags (International Coffee Organization,
2015a). In 2012 the total Italian consumption of coffee amounted to approximately 5.7
million kg (International coffee Organization, 2015b), making Italy the 6th largest consumer
of coffee, after US, Brazil, Germany, Japan and France (International Coffee Organization,
2015b), which, considering the difference in population, alone reflects Italians’ love for
coffee. Italian coffee is considered a superior quality product in Italy as well as abroad, due to
the Italian particular preparation technique developed through the centuries. It involves the
use of machines that have been researched and perfected to produce a good tasting coffee
(Morris, 2008). On the other hand, in other countries, coffee is prepared with simpler
machines. The coffee prepared with these two methods has a different taste, consistency and
aroma and belongs to different cultures of coffee drinking. The proof of differentiation and
high quality of Italian coffee is the fact that Italian coffees names, like espresso, have
maintained their denominations across Italian boarders and have become generic names.
Just as it is popular abroad, so it is taken as a pride at home. Italian consumers in general trust
all domestic manufactured products. But what are specifically the factors that influence the
decision of Italian consumers to purchase domestic coffee? Is COO and its connected
mechanisms important cues to take into consideration?
My thesis proposes to explore through a qualitative and quantitative study the reasons for the
presumed domestic products’ positive COO effect in the Italian coffee market. My research is
going to add knowledge to the existing literature on COO and to evaluate the consumers’
buying decisions in the Italian coffee market. The objective is to both understand the threats
and the opportunities awaiting companies wishing to enter this market. Evaluating the
consumer buying decisions will help to understand which are the best marketing strategies to
position a new product in such a tough, competitive and saturated market.
2
1 COO IN THE CONSUMER BUYING DECISION PROCESS
The consumer behaviour can be defined as a set of activities and processes that the consumer
performs when purchasing a product that would best satisfy their needs (Belch & Belch,
2007). It is however difficult to make any prediction regarding such behaviour, because each
decision is an interconnection of different feelings, experiences and knowledge that comes in
contact with the external factors surrounding the consumer during the purchase. Among them
a relevant factor is COO.
In this first part of my thesis I present an overview of the COO literature. I begin by
describing the steps of the purchasing decision process and then I concentrate on COO as a
factor that consumers take in consideration in the product evaluation step. Further, I analyze
how do consumer recognize it and the evolution of its meaning and relevance through the
years. My overview continues with a detailed description of the mechanisms that summarize
the COO concept. The chapter concludes with a focus on the role of COO in the Italian
market, named the Made in Italy production.
1.1 Consumer’s buying decision process
Consumers are constantly faced with the task of purchasing something, be it a new
smartphone, a drink or a household appliance. Before actually buying a product, consumers
unconsciously follow a certain pattern toward their final purchase. Different products,
consumers’s needs and attitudes extend or shorten the time required for a purchase, but
generally consumers go through five stages of what it is called the buyer decision process
(Kotler & Armstrong, 2012). This process sums consumer behaviour before, during and after
the purchase of a product.
Figure 1. Buyer decision process
Source: P. Kotler & G. Armstrong. Principles of Marketing, 2012, p.152
The first stage, the need recognition, is where consumers realize that there is a need they
would like to satisfy. A need is born because consumers perceive that their actual state differs
from their ideal state of being (Belch & Belch, 2007) and that a certain product can improve
this. The reason for the recognition of a need lies in many different factors that are divided in
external or internal stimuli: consumers could be unsatisfied with their possessions, in need to
replace them based on a new lifestyle or in need to obtain missing ones (Kotler & Armstrong,
2012). Sometimes consumers don’t even realize the need of certain products until companies
stimulate the creation of the need with their innovations or advertising.
3
Information search is the next phase, although consumers do not always carry out an
extensive search on their desired product. Consumers usually actively search for information
when the product is unknown to them or presents some complexities. The type of information
that consumers are going to look for regards availability of the product, product’s
characteristics and existing alternatives. Consumers can gather information from experiential,
personal, commercial and public sources (Kotler & Armstrong, 2012). Experiential sources
are pertinent to the consumers’ past experience and knowledge about the product. When
family members or friends share their experiences with the product, consumers acquire
personal sources. Consumers can also actively search for information through public sources,
such as mass media, the Internet or run into commercial sources, such as advertising, displays
or sales people. The information acquired will be used as a basis for the following step, which
is the evaluation of alternatives.
On the market the consumers can find all kind of products and brands. In this stage, the
consumers narrow their decision on a subset of possible alternatives, called consideration set
(Peter & Olson, 2002). The consideration set is “the set of alternatives brought to mind on a
particular choice occasion” (Huy, Svein & Olsen, 2013, p. 598). In the evaluation process,
products that the consumers recall from their memory are grouped together in the so called
evoked set (Solomon, Bamossy, Askegaard, & Hogg, 2006). Apart from the evoked set, the
consumers can also consider relatively unknown brands, that can be found accidentally in the
store or through research, if they possess features that can give them a higher level of
satisfaction than other products. The products within the consideration set are compared based
on their attributes and other information gathered in the previous stage. Each consumer has
different needs and tastes that make him evaluate and select products differently.
Eventually, consumers make their purchasing decision. Usually not just one person is
involved in it (Palmer, 2000). However, the purchase decision has to be distinguished from
the actual purchase, which implies not only the decision about the product the consumers
want to buy, but also the place and time they are going to do it. During the actual shopping
experience, factors as shop atmosphere, the quality of the service or the shopper’s attitude,
can positively or negatively influence the purchase.
The decision making process doesn’t end with the actual purchase of the product, but it
concludes with the post purchase behaviour. Using the product, consumers understand how
close their perceptions of the product is to its actual performances. The level of satisfaction
influences the likelihood of a repeated purchase. Moreover “customer satisfaction is key to
building profitable relationships with consumers—to keeping and growing consumers and
reaping their customer lifetime value” (Kotler & Armstrong, 2012, p. 154). A satisfied
consumer can become a regular or loyal consumer, while unsatisfaction induce consumers to
buy alternative products in their next purchase and makes them share negative opinions on it.
4
1.2 COO in the evalution process
In the past, products were not differentiated as a result of a mass production economy. With
industrialization and the increased focus on the consumers’ needs, companies became more
flexible and specialized in developing many different variants of the same product, enriching
the offer in the market (Orrù, 1991). Therefore, to distinguish one product from another, the
consumers take products’ attributes as evaluation criteria and depending on their needs and
personal judgment, assign different degrees of importance and value to each of them (Bilkey
& Nes, 1982). After they have acquired, evaluated and integrated products’ information and
attributes, consumers select the product that shows the higher level of utility to them.
There are many attributes that are used to assess a product, such as color, size, price, brand,
origin and so on. According to Rezvani et al. (2012), in literature those parameters are divided
between intrinsic and extrinsic cues. Intrinsic cues are inherent to physical characteristics of
the product, such as color, material, performance, design, while extrinsic ones are all the other
attributes not related to the physical aspects, such as brand, price, country of origin,
distribution channel (Espejel, Fandos & Flaviàn, 2007). Prior to purchase, consumers are
seldom able to detect the quality of a product, so when few information about the product are
available, consumers rely more on extrinsic cues than intrinsic ones to infer the quality of the
product (Veale & Quester, 2009). Among extrinsic cues, COO is used consistently in the
consumer’s evaluation process (Ahmed, Zbib, Sikander, & Farhat, 2010; Ahmed et al., 2004;
Rezvani et al., 2012; Insch & Florek, 2009).
Generally, when we talk about COO we think of the “country that manufactures, designs or
assembles a product or brand with which it is associated” (Rezvani et al., 2012, p. 205). A
product’s COO allows consumers to infer information on a product and its value, benefits,
implicit risks and future results. Thanks to globalization and the technological revolution that
made international trade ordinary and fast, consumers can find in their local stores products
that are imported from all over the world. They first use the COO first to link each brand or
product to a country, and secondly as an indicator of those products’ quality (Chryssochidis,
2007; Ahmed et al., 2010). The quality perceived through COO can increase or decrease
depending on how it will be estimated. According to Chu et al. (2010), a joint or separate
evaluation mode can be adopted. Usually, the product value becomes clearer when the
product is compared with some other known brands or products of the same category. In fact,
in an actual purchase environment consumers tend to compare alternatives as a method to
evaluate the products (Dmitrović & Vida, 2010). Chu et al.’s (2010) research confirmed that
COO has a stronger effect on consumers in the joint evaluation than in the separate
evaluation. They suggest that companies that have a perceived low COO quality should create
an environment facilitating separate assessment.
The effect of COO on consumer behaviour has been a subject of research for 50 years
already, during which researchers had not agreed upon a single definition of COO, but have
proposed many variations of it (Jin, Chansarkar & Kondap, 2006; Martìn & Cerviño, 2011).
The evolution of the concept through the years was in line with the evolution of markets and
5
companies (Harun, Wahid, Mohammad & Ignatius, 2011). Changes in society and companies’
operations have fragmented the basic conception of COO (Hamzaoui & Merunka, 2006).
From the ‘70s, in accordance to the companies’ goal of efficiency and maximization of
profitability, companies have exponentially started to externalize activities which were
formerly being carried out within to other countries where the labor costs were usually
cheaper (Pratap, 2014).
Hamzaoui and Merunka (2006) stated that this transition has changed products into hybrid
objects, designed in a part of the world, partly manufactured in another country and
assembled in a third one, which could be distant from the home country of the company. For
that reason many researchers have incorporated product hybridity in COO, creating new COO
subcategories: COO is now divided in product’s country of design (COD), country of
assembly (COA), country of brand (COB) and country of manufacture (COM) (Bilkey & Nes,
1982; Han & Terpstra, 1988; Hamzaoui & Meruka, 2006; Rezvani et al., 2012).
Consumer judgment has also evolved in line with this new trend. Consumers can be divided
in those who see COO as the actual place where the product is produced (Papadopoulos,
1993) and those who look at COO as the country of domicile of the company, even if the
product has been manufactured elsewhere (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2008). The
consequence of this ramification of the consumer’s view is that many researchers have
abandoned the idea of COO defined as the country where the product has been manufactured
and embraced the more immediate connection of a COO as the country where the brand or
product is perceived to come from by the consumer (Johansson, Douglas & Nonaka, 1985).
Usually what influences the product evaluation is the country’s image. The country’s image is
every image, picture or stereotype that the consumer attaches to each country based on his
perception (Han, 1990; Roth & Romeo, 1992; Lin & Chen, 2006; Chu et al., 2010). This
image is created by consumer’s various associations of the product and its COO with what
consumers know, perceive or stereotype about a country's manufacturing ability, national
characteristics, economic and political background, technological innovativeness and so on
(Nagashima, 1970; Hamzaoui & Marunka, 2006). Each country image results in a COO
effect, which can be defined as “any positive or negative effect that the country a product is
perceived to be from has on a consumer’s product evaluation” (Auruskeviciene, Vianelli &
Reardon, 2012, p 21).
Consumers are willing to buy products when the products have a positive COO effect, due to
the favorable perception of product’s quality related to the country. When that happens
companies will accentuate strategies that would promote their COO using for example
country specific symbols or colors or adopt a name that would be immediately associated to
said country (Insch & Florek, 2009). This brings also to a more rapid creation of positive
reputation with consumers. It is in the best interest of both the country and its companies to
not just to promote, but also to put effort in maintaining that positive reputation (Tse & Gorn,
1993).
6
COO effect is a product category-specific phenomenon. Chryssochidis (2007) stated that
generally each country specializes in or develop some capabilities that allow it to outperform
other countries in the production of certain types of product. When the product category’s
most important feature matches with a country’s production strength, the COO effect will be
positive and the country will become a representative for that category (Roth & Romeo,
1992). For example, Japan is known for its electronic goods, Germany for its household
appliances, Italy for its fashion products and design, Switzerland for chocolate (Hamzaoui &
Marunka, 2006). Ahmed et al. (2004) argued that this positive country attribute is usually not
transferable to other categories, as consumers evaluate dissimilarly different products having
the same COO. Balabanis and Diamantopoulos (2004, p. 87) examined domestic and foreign
purchase biases for eight consumer product categories, and concluded that consumers “change
their preference maps across product categories”. For example, Italian shoes would receive
high marks from consumers, but Italian electronic goods might be perceived poorly (Knight,
1999).
A reason for that could lie in the importance attributed to each dimension that a product can
have (Chryssochidis, 2007). A product originating from a particular country may be evaluated
favourably on one dimension, but unfavourably on another. For example, French wine is
prestigious for its taste, but presents some health issues. Therefore, COO is also attributespecific (Juric & Worsley, 1998). Different categories of products can have a leading
dimension that could not coincide with the country’s strength, which Roth & Romeo (1992)
called a favourable mismatch or unfavourable match. When the skills of a country do not
correspond with product’s attributes that are important for consumers, the COO effect is
negative and an unfavourable mismatch takes place (Roth & Romeo, 1992; Chryssochidis,
2007).
Companies, as well as researchers, are especially concerned for COO effect when it turns out
to be negative. Consumers negative stereotypes can impose a barrier for companies
attempting to enter a market (Shabbir, Kirmani, Iqbal & Khan, 2009). In those cases,
companies would better try to avoid their origin to be known by the consumers and highlight
other product’s attributes or point out the other positive dimensions of a country. In the
context of COO, also practicing outsourcing can be for companies a double-edged sword: for
companies it is an advantageous cost reduction strategy, but for some consumers it can
devaluate the company’s product quality perception, as products are produced in countries
that don’t have a good manufacturing reputation (Knight, 1999).
COO is however not the only cue that consumers consider when selecting a product. Price,
brand and design are equally important. Many researchers, in relation to COO fragmentation,
have started to use and compare the brand origin cue simultaneously with the manufacturing
origin cue as two powerful and distinct products attributes and important quality cues
(Chattalas, Kramer & Takada, 2008). Brands can outperform COO, especially in the case of a
powerful brand name. Consumers tend to rely on their knowledge or loyalty toward the brand
more than COO. In this scenario, outsourcing should not be a concern for big companies. A
multinational company (MNC) that comes from a country with a negative COO can, with its
7
influence and good products, even start changing the whole country’s negative COO effect to
a positive one (Tse & Gorn, 1993).
On the other hand, other researchers found out that there were cases where even influent
MNCs were powerless against the COO negative effect. For example, Tse and Gorn (1993)
analyzed the Volkswagen case, that, while being a brand known for the quality of its cars, was
unsuccessful on the American market with their new car model, due to the cars being
manufactured in facilities located in Mexico. In some cases companies, knowing the
disadvantage of the COO effect on their brand, arbitrarily designate as origin of its products
the one among the country of design, manufacture, assemble, etc. that is the most favourably
seen by the consumers (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2008).
It must also be noted that consumers’ attitudes may change over time and the same can also
happen to their COO image perception. As it is hard to obtain a good reputation, but easy to
lose it, companies should pay attention to not damage the reputation of their country when
their COO effect is positive and try to improve it when it is negative (Bilkey & Nes, 1982).
In the studying of COO, consumer preferences for products are difficult to detect because
different cultures, groups of influence and personalities produce dissimilar perceptions among
consumers and they can generate different COO effects on the same product category (Han,
1990; Rezvani et al, 2012; Chattalas et al., 2008). With those differences, many hypotheses
can be made on what effect will COO have across different countries. Tests can show similar
or opposite behaviour on the same product category. However, there are several behaviours
that were frequently confirmed to appear in consumers’ evaluations. First of all, Knight
(1999) states that consumers generally favourably evaluate products produced in their own
country, while Watson and Wright (2000) discovered that, among foreign products,
consumers have a higher positive attitude toward products which originate in a country that is
politically, economically or culturally similar to their own. Some studies suggest that
consumers organize countries on a hierarchical scale (Ahmed & d’Astorus, 2008). Products
coming from developing countries are rated to be inferior to products from developed
countries (Veale & Quester, 2009; Chu et al., 2010; Jin et al., 2006). Chu et al. (2010) stated
that among many determinants of a country’s image, stage of economic development has been
the most commonly cited one. Veale and Quester (2009) confirmed that developed countries,
like Japan or Germany, enjoy a good reputation around the world due to their well-known
economic development.
Consumers come in touch with different products in various ways and can be either expert or
novice buyers. In the next chapter, different aspects of consumer’s behaviour regarding COO
will be analyzed, along with consumer knowledge about it, and how consumers recognize
COO.
8
1.3 COO recognition
Consumers are able to evaluate products based on their origin, if there is clear evidence of it.
Stores are filled with so many brands and products that it is impossible for costumers to recall
in their memory the COO of all of them. The “made in” label earned the role of identifier of
product’s COO, but the evolution of COO in a multi-component construct made COO
recognition confusing (Phau & Prendergast, 2000). According to Usunier (2006) the term
“made in” has become less significant and does not necessarily indicate the origin of a
product anymore. What contributed to the confusion is that the “made in” label is not
mandatory anymore, which resulted in new, more extended labels such as “Made in Europe”
or “US made parts” (Samiee, 1994). Today consumers may not recognize the COO of
products or even wrongly interpret their origin (Samiee et al., 2005). In literature researchers
agree that consumers retain some COO information in their memory, but their arguments on it
are contradictory, some attesting that the recognition is high (Paswan & Sharma, 2004), other
that it is too low (Martìn & Cerviño, 2011).
COO fragmentation requires consumers to search for more information on the COO. Many
researchers expect consumers to be more involved for certain products at both the product
category or brand level and therefore possess or seek information on the product’s COO on
their own (Martìn & Cerviño, 2011). The higher the involvement, the higher will be the COO
recognition. Consumers will more easily recognize the COO of known brands or associate a
positive country image to brands when the brand conveys a positive image of the country
and/or its values. However most of the time consumers don’t have the will or means to search
for the needed information (Samiee et al., 2005). According to Ahmed et al. (2010),
consumers tend to rely more on their knowledge on COO rather than attempting to discover
the manufacturing origin. Consumers can then wrongly interpret the origin of the product, or
neglect it and base their judgment on other cues, like the price or brand. Samiee et al. (2005),
wanting to verify the skepticism of other authors on COO effect on consumers, constructed a
measure for COO recognition called Brand Origin Recognition Accuracy (BORA). Using
domestic and foreign brands, and four predictors, two studies were conducted: the first served
to verify consumers’ recognition levels and model fit; the second served to ascertain the
influence of the language on the first study’s results. Consumers demonstrated to know just
one third of all the brands taken under investigation and to associate the brand to the country
mainly through the name of the brand. Domestic brand origin awareness was higher. This
study strengthened the hypothesis on the inability of consumers to correctly recognize brands’
COO.
However as COO has many times proved to play a salient role in the decision making
process, researchers acknowledge that it’s not just one factor that produces effects on the
consumer’s recognition level and willingness to search for it. The variables that influence the
magnitude of the COO effect are many and can be classified in those which qualify the
consumer, product or country. Ahmed and d’Astous (2008) added that explanatory factors
like demographics, familiarity with a country’s products, purchase behaviour and
psychological variables jointly work to explain consumers’ COO perceptions. Basic
9
socioeconomic and demographic analysis of a country should be a first step in any research
on this topic, as education, income, age and gender are all factors that can better define the
consumers and give researchers an initial hint on their behaviour (Paswan & Sharma, 2004;
Martìn & Cerviño, 2011).
Samiee et al. (2005, p. 382) stated that “consumers higher in socioeconomic status may regard
a brand's COO as more diagnostic in decision-making than lower socioeconomic consumers
whose income levels necessitate their focusing more on functional considerations such as
price and value”. How people communicate, interpret information, their brand preferences
and consumption patterns are all dependent on their educational level (Dow & Karunaratna,
2006). Consumers that have a higher education are proven to be able to interpret and process
brands’ information more accurately, see foreign products more favourably and be less likely
to misidentify a brand’s origin. Education is usually strictly and positively connected to the
income level. Higher income groups show a preference towards foreign brands (Jin et al.,
2006). Consumers’ international experiences, meaning the knowledge and experiences that
the consumers acquire abroad, also count in consumer’s COO recognition and the importance
they give to it (Samiee et al., 2005). International travel has been shown to enhance
perceptions toward foreign products, other languages and brand origins (Wall, Liefeld &
Heslop, 1991). A reasonable expectation, therefore, is that consumers who have engaged in
international travel should possess greater knowledge of foreign brands (Samiee et al., 2005).
Concerning demographic factors, age and gender are the main factors that play a role in this
context. Usually one should expect older people to have a more profound knowledge and
longer experience with products than young, brand-oriented consumers, but youngsters are
more flexible regarding products and innovations, and in the actual global community are
expected to accept foreign brands more positively and proactively (Samiee et al, 2005). As for
gender, women are thought to be more accepting toward foreign products than men, but to
have a greater tendency to buy domestic products.
Companies know the complexities connected to consumer behaviour and will observe
consumers while shopping in order to indirectly or directly influence consumers into buying
their products with various marketing tools and strategies. However, their attempts are not
always successful, because the consumers’ judgment and reasoning are based on many
different aspects such as, for example, personal experiences, values or needs.t These are
sometimes so unpredictable that theorists classify all of them in what they call the consumer’s
black box. Supposing that consumers recognize the origin of products, there are 3
determinants of consumer perception (Jin et al., 2006; Martìn & Cerviño, 2011): consumer
can be influenced by product’s attributes, their personal emotions or social and personal
norms. Marketing theorists came to the agreement in dividing consumer conduct in cognitive,
affective and normative sphere that will be individually elaborated in the next subchapters.
10
1.3.1 COO cognitive perspective
Among cognitive, affective and normative perspectives, the cognitive is the one that was
studied the longest. A cognitive process is a process that involves a cognitive activity, such as
reasoning, thinking, remembering; in other words, it uses existing knowledge to acquire new
one. With the cognitive perspective consumers use COO as an informational cue, specifically
as an attribute of the quality of the product, to compare the products in search of the one that
has the highest quality or added value for them (Ahmed & d’Astous, 1996). Once consumers
assign a COO to a product, they make inferences regarding the properties of that particular
product through their knowledge about that country and its brands (Chu et al., 2010).
Consumers can know products well, know them for just certain cues or not know any of their
attributes. In their study, Tse and Gorn (1993) found COO to be equally salient whether the
brand was a globally well known or a new one. However, consumers are expected to be more
familiar with domestic brands than with foreign ones, because of higher exposure to those
brands (Martìn & Cerviño, 2011). Exposure and media increase consumers’ brand familiarity
and make products’ COOs better known (Cordell, 1992).
Researchers generally distinguish mainly two segment groups of consumers: those who are
acquiring a product of the category for the first time or have limited knowledge about it, and
those who have already bought products from that category and have some experiences with it
(Rezvani et al., 2012). The difference lies clearly the amount of information they possess
about the products. The level of their knowledge influences the COO effects and then impacts
the decision making procedures (Ahmed et al., 2004). Some researchers have categorized the
processing of COO information as the halo and summary dimensions (Ahmed et al., 2004;
Hong & Wyer, 1989). The halo effect occurs when consumers are not familiar with the
products or in other words are not capable of detecting the product’s quality. They thus mirror
their viewpoint about a certain country on these products to evaluate them (Hong & Wyer,
1989). On the other hand, a summary construct operates when consumers are familiar with a
country’s products and infer product quality by summing up their experience and knowledge
with those products and their COO image (Chu et al., 2010). Usually, consumers start
evaluating new products with the halo effect, and gradually, when gaining experience, the
halo effect is replaced by the summary effect (Nebenzahl, Jaffe & Lampert, 1997).
1.3.2 COO affective perspective
Until now we looked mainly at consumers as individuals that base their judgment on what is
more convenient for them, but humans are not purely objective beings and in many
circumstances they are also driven by their feelings. Emotions can provide an explanation for
certain consumer decisions and therefore should not be neglected. In relation to COO, in fact,
many studies revealed that the origin of negative or positive COO effects lies in preferences
toward the geographic origin of the products (Ahmed et al., 2010; Klein, Ettenson & Morris,
1998). A positive emotional association with a foreign country and its products is what is in
literature defined as affinity (Auruskeviciene et al., 2012), while when consumers emotions
11
toward a country results in an open aversion toward its products, the researchers call it
animosity (Klein et al., 1998). When considering the domestic country, what generally all
consumers have in common is their favourable inclination toward domestic products, due to
the values, traditions, ideologies, etc. that they share with their country (Knight, 1999). Strong
affection displayed toward one’s own country is represented by patriotism.
Patriotism can be defined as “individuals’ love and concern for their country and their
attachment to their own nation and its symbols” (Vida & Reardon, 2008, pp. 37). It
strengthens the importance the domestic country’s values, ideologies and socio-cultural
climate have on the mindset of the consumers and it directs their product choices. Strong
national feeling results in a more favourable evaluation of domestic products and a higher
negative attitude toward foreign products (Han, 1988). Patriotic consumers therefore pay
more attention to product’s COO information in the moment of choice in order to make sure
to buy mainly domestic products (Hong & Wyer, 1989). Buying foreign products is perceived
as unpatriotic and an act that doesn’t support the domestic economy, regardless of the other
cues connected to the products. Foreign products thus produce a negative COO effect on
consumers. On the other hand, domestic products have for patriotic consumers a high
symbolic meaning. Supporting domestic producers is seen as a duty, reaffirming their loyalty
to their nation. Knowing that the products they are buying are domestic fills consumers with a
sense of pride and is enough to bring them satisfaction (Rybina, Reardon & Humphrey,
2010).
1.3.3 COO normative perspective
The third perspective that plays a role in consumers’ preference formation is the normative
mechanism. According to this mechanism consumers are influenced to buy certain goods by
an individual or a group. What drives consumers’ purchases is their will to align with the
expectations and norms of others and blend in with them (Huang, Phau & Lin, 2010). Such
consumers clearly distinguish product of the in-group, or home country, from those in the outgroups, or foreign countries, and evaluate all the out-groups in comparison to it.
Consumer ethnocentrism is a construct that is studied when considering this mechanism. It
can be defined as the consumers’ beliefs about the appropriateness and morality of purchasing
foreign-made products (Sharma & Shimps, 1987). The in-group determines the standards for
judging other groups and the willingness to associate with them, viewing things favourably if
they belong to their own group or unfavourably if they are external to it (Chryssochidis,
2007). The stronger the feelings of consumer ethnocentrism, the higher the COO
consideration (Samiee et al., 2005). The beliefs of the in-group can lead to strong patriotic
feelings, pride and vanity (Chryssochidis, 2007; Auruskeviciene et al., 2012). Even if aware
of the real products’ quality, consumers tend to consider domestic products as superior to
foreign ones using stereotypes developed from their social environment and their own
assumptions (Tse & Gorn, 1993). Ethnocentric consumers therefore prefer domestic products
over foreign ones and view buying foreign products as an act that hurts domestic economy
and a betrayal toward a community they identify with (Rezvani et al., 2012). According to
12
Watson and Wright’s (2000) analysis, consumer ethnocentrism was identified more in female,
older, less educated and less wealthy consumers.
Governments have in the last decades reduced many tariffs in order to allow faster and bigger
trade among nations, but in the recent crisis, ethnocentric feelings seem to be increasingly
present (Auruskeviciene et al., 2012). Researchers suggested that to stimulate ethnocentric
consumers to buy foreign products, imported goods should be priced lower than domestic
ones (Watson & Wright, 2000), while others advised foreign companies to adopt strategic
alliances with domestic companies or to localize the brand name (Han & Terpstra, 1988). In
fact, ethnocentrism negatively influences product beliefs and judgment of foreign goods, but
not necessarily influences consumer’s purchasing patterns. Balabanis and Diamanopoulos
(2004) found that consumer ethnocentrism makes consumers prefer domestic products, but
not necessarily reject foreign ones in every situation. Javalgi et al. (2005) found that the
impact of ethnocentrism is moderate when a product is perceived as absolutely necessary,
while Lantz and Loeb (1996) reported cases of ethnocentric consumers buying foreign
products, highlighting the fact that those consumers tend to buy products coming from
countries that are culturally similar to their country. Furthermore, some researchers gave
evidence of cases where consumers cared above all that the products were made in their
country, not caring if they were produced by a local or foreign company. As indicated by
Knight’s (1999) findings, some Americans prefer products that are made in America to those
made in Japan, even if the local producer is a foreign owned company.
The three perspectives have been analyzed separately, but are actually interdependent.
Consumers usually consider both emotions and knowledge when they evaluate products. Both
aspects also strongly influence their decisions, but when doubtful consumers will follow their
feelings (Ajzen, 2001). Specific unusual situations, like economic crisis or harder political or
economic periods, make consumers more emotionally instable and therefore more subject to
their feelings (Dmitrović, Vida & Reardon, 2009). Such periods can increase consumers’
distrust in foreign nations and products and increase feelings of patriotism and ethnocentrism.
1.4 Made in Italy
As already said, the “Made in” is a label that directly identifies the origin of a product or,
more specifically, where the product has been made. Researchers are nowadays contesting its
role, stressing instead the relevance of brands and origin of the brands, as opposed to the
origin of manufacturing in the product identification and selection. For scholars, brands are
progressively taking the lead in consumers’ perception of products’ quality (Usunier, 2011).
That is a consequence of the production fragmentation and the difficulties that it entails.
Consumer’s choices are still conditioned by the COO cue for certain products and countries
though, with Italy being the most evident example. Italy is considered a place of excellence,
especially for the manufacturing and food & beverage sectors, so that the Made in Italy holds
generally a positive COO effect abroad. The label Made in Italy is not just the label indicating
the origin of Italian products, but it has evolved to be a brand itself representing the
prestigious Italian production abroad.
13
Among industrialized nations, Italy presents a peculiar economic structure. In the Italian
market 99.4% of companies are small and medium enterprises (SMEs), of which micro
enterprises with a maximum of 9 workers accounts for 94.8% (Istat, 2011). These companies
are mainly specialized in traditional sectors like textile or furniture and give job to 79.8% of
the working population (Istat, 2011). SMEs in Italy are born as family based companies that
come from a long tradition of artisan craftsmanship, which has favoured their current unique
value. According to an Istat’s survey (2011), family businesses characterize more than 70% of
industrial and service companies. In those companies old handcrafted techniques, that in most
countries are lost by being replaced by machines, are handed down from father to son and are
preserved for many decades. Today as in the past, the Italian growth is based on the expertise
and ability of the hands of those artisans. Even though Italian companies are mostly small,
they sell outstanding products known for their functionality, elegance and prestige all over the
world.
The Italian system performance is however, due to its reduced dimension, lagging behind
foreign competitors in some aspects. To be a large enterprise means to be able to take
advantage from a highly developed technology, economies of scale and international
expansion. SMEs are limited in that and have to use their ingenuity to stay competitive (Orrù,
1991). Italian district systems were born as a necessity for SMEs to fill that gap and to
achieve higher efficiency and success. Divided in the industrial zones of Italian regions by
sectors, those clusters gather companies specialized in one or more phases of the production
process and are organized as a “complex and tangled web of external economies and
diseconomies, of joint and associated costs, of historical and cultural vestiges, which envelops
both inter-firm and interpersonal relationships” (Becattini, 1989, p. 132). The efficiency of the
district is reached with strong competition among firms, but at the same time also with a long
term collaborative network, in which companies exchange production skills and knowledge in
order to grow and innovate (Capasso & Morrison, 2013). Collaboration for those firms also
means sharing the same values and way of doing all kinds of operations in the best interests of
the district, so that the links of the companies are both economic and social. This system
creates flexibility and collective efficiency and allows companies to help each other in the
reduction of uncertainty and costs (Orrù, 1991).
Thanks to the shared help, some among those small companies evolve into important
representatives of the Italian production and its district’s prestige locally and abroad. The
COO image of Italian products evokes in consumers concepts such as sense of beauty, focus
on details, the use of prestigious materials and specialized manufacture. This is especially true
in the three leading manufacturing sectors called by some 3 Fs: Fashion, Furniture and Food,
which accounted in 2014 for approximately the 80% of all Italian production (Università
Bocconi, 2009).
The COO is therefore the most evident feature of Italian products abroad. Consumers around
the world trust and admire Italian style (Stile italiano e italian way of life: carte vincenti per il
made in italy?, 2006). A testimony of the Italian products’ value are the hundred of imitations
14
available in foreign markets. Those products are however low quality goods that end up
hurting the turnover of Italian producers and the Italian COO image (Platania & Privitera,
n.d.). This violation of intellectual property has reached such a scale that is today known as
Italian Sounding (Platania & Privitera, n.d.). The use of Italian resembling names seem to be
the most common technique used by counterfeiters. An example is the Italian cheese
Parmigiano Reggiano, which changes into Regiànito in Argentina, Parmesao in Brasile and
Pamesello in Belgium (Il Quotidiano della Pubblica Amministrazione, 2014).
Among the many products that are loved and symbolize the Italian uniqueness there is coffee.
As Dillon (2006) points out, coffee is after oil the most traded good in the world and it is
considered one of the most essential commodity by consumers (Monk & Ryding, 2007; Joo,
Min, Kwon & Kwon, 2010). Its consumption has become a daily ritual, with 1.5 billion of
cups drunk per day (Interafrican Coffee Organization, 2013). Coffee is a valuable product in
almost every country, even in tea consuming countries like United Kingdom, India or China
where it is becoming a valid substitute to any hot and cold drink. The image of coffee and its
health benefits have been shaped and divulged largely through many channels, promotions
and store concepts, making coffee the popular beverage that it is now (Farah, 2012).
Globalization and companies’ internationalization have progressively changed the coffee
market in a competitive and innovative place, with the introduction of many types of coffee,
as well as new brewing methods, agricultural practices and consumers’ needs.
The Italian past and current quality pursuance in this industry made the country famous for its
coffee tradition and innovations, making it reach global admiration and fame by being home
of the espresso coffee (Italian Trade Agency, n.d.). Coffee is therefore another of the valuable
Made in Italy products. The quality known abroad is at the same time a highly valued feature
at home for domestic products.
2 THE COFFEE MARKET
In the next chapter, the coffee industry will be analyzed, starting from general definition of
coffee, its export and import data, the steps of the production process and other information
crucial to understand the current operations of this important industry. Description of the
Italian coffee market as one of the key players will follow. I will dig into the history of the
Italian coffee symbol, the espresso, to understand the origin of its perceived high quality
today. The chapter ends with the presentation of foreign companies operating on the Italian
coffee market.
2.1 The global coffee market
Coffee is a plant with red fruits, called coffee cherries, that grows in tropical areas, where the
interchanging of arid and humid climates are the perfect match for its growth (Joo et al.,
2010). Coffee therefore originates and is cultivated in South American, Asian and African
lands, which, although classified as tropical, host different humidity levels, temperature and
climate changes, accomodating the creation of 100 different species of coffee plants (What is
15
coffee?, 2015). Among them, however, only two are used for world wide commercial
purposes: the Coffea arabica and Coffea canephora, better known as the Arabica and Robusta
varieties (Gray, 1998).
Those two varieties of beans are distinguished for their shape and specific taste. Arabica
coffee plants are delicate and sensible to weather changes, but yield a more oval shaped bean
that presents an intense, sweet and refined flavour (Biotto, Toni & Nonino, 2012). Robusta on
the other hand gets its name from the resistance with which the plant fights parasites and
illnesses. In comparison to Arabica, Robusta beans are smaller, rounder, contain more
caffeine and have a less intense and more spicy and bitter flavour, which usually identify it as
a poorer quality coffee variety (Biotto et al., 2012). Although there are two coffee varieties
used, usually coffee is distinguished in three categories called Mild coffee, Brasilian coffee
and Robusta coffee. When specialists talk about Mild coffee, they refer to the purest and most
qualitative and expensive Arabica varieties, which grow just at altitudes of over 2,000 feet
and that are carefully handpicked. Brazilian coffee doesn’t refer just to the coffee produced in
Brasil, but to a variety of Arabica coffee of lower quality than Mild coffee, cultivated on
lower altitudes and usually mass harvested. Finally Robusta coffee indicates coffee derived
from Canephora plants (Specialty coffee defined, 2012).
On the market, the Arabica variety represents 62% of all sold coffee and Robusta the
remaining 38% (International Coffee Organization, 2015a). Due to the higher quality of the
Arabica bean, it is sold for higher prices than Robusta. The consumption of coffee is
increasing year by year: especially the Robusta variety, thanks to the improved harvesting
methods, has from the 60s almost doubled its market share, although Arabica is still perceived
as of better quality and is thus more demanded (International Coffee Organization, 2015c).
Figure 2. Coffee production distribution, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 comparison
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2012/2013
2013/2014
South
America
Asia
Central
America
Africa
Source: International Coffee Organization, Annual review 2013/2014, 2015c
Arabica is found mainly in Central and South America, while Robusta in Asian and African
regions. The majority of coffee comes from South America (45.7%), followed by Asia
16
(31.7%), with the remaining 22.6% originating half from Africa and half from Central
America (International Coffee Organization, 2015c). The main South American producer is
Brasil, in Asia it is Vietnam, in Africa it is Ethiopia and in Central America it is Honduras.
2.1.1 Coffee production and exports
In the crop year 2013/2014, the total production of coffee amounted to 146.8 million 60 kg
bags. Coffee exports represented approximately 78.1% of it, which is 114 millions 60 kg bags
(International Coffee Organization, 2015c).
Compared with the previous year, the values were slightly lower, but on a larger scale total
coffee production has grown steadily year by year, which matches the expanding coffee
consumption (International Coffee Organization, 2015c). In the last 20 years the production as
well as exports have increased for almost 50%, production being 93 million of 60 kg bags in
the 90s, while exports were 73 millions (International Coffee Organization, 2015c).
Millions
Figure 3. Global production and global trade from 1990 to present (in million 60 kg bags)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Global production
Global Trade
Source: International Coffee Organization, Annual review 2013/2014, 2015c
Coffee is produced in roughly 55 countries. The top ten exporting countries represents 87.5%
of all world exported coffee in the year 2013/2014, whereby approximately 60% is
represented by the three main players in the production market: Brazil, Vietnam and
Colombia (Gonzalez-Perez & Gutierrez-Viana, 2012). Four out of the top ten counties:
Vietnam, Indonesia, India and Uganda, sell predominantely Robusta variety; while Brasil,
Colombia, Honduras, Peru, Ethiopia and Mexico sell mostly Arabica variety.
The biggest producer and exporter of coffee beans and market leader since 1840 is Brasil, in
where Arabica is the main coffee bean cultivated. In the year 2013/2014 it produced almost
50 million 60 kg bags of coffee (International Coffee Organization, 2015a).
17
Table 1. Top 10 coffee production countries in 2013/2014
Exporting
country
Brasil
Vietnam
Colombia
Indonesia
India
Honduras
Peru
Uganda
Ethiopia
Mexico
Coffee variety
predominantely
produced
Arabica
Robusta
Arabica
Robusta
Robusta
Arabica
Arabica
Robusta
Arabica
Arabica
Production quantity
(in million
60 kg bags)
49.2
27.5
12.1
11.6
5.1
4.5
4.3
3.6
6.5
3.9
Exported quantity
(in million
60 kg bags)
32.7
24.7
10.8
10.1
5.0
4.1
4.1
3.5
3.0
2.4
Summed %
of world
exports
28.4
50
59.4
68.2
72.6
76.2
79.8
82.8
84.9
87.5
Source: International Coffee Organization, Historical data, 2015a
However, only 32 million 60 kg bags were exported (the 64% of total production), while the
remaining 36% was domestically consumed (International Coffee Organization, 2015a). From
that it is evident that Brasil is not just one of the major exporters but also one of the major
coffee consumers. Brasil is mainly exporting to Europe, accounting for 33% of all European
imports. 70% is supplied to the top five importing European countries: Germany, Italy,
Belgium, France and Spain (International Coffee Organization, 2015b).
Millions
Figure 4. Top 10 countries’ production and export quantities in 2013/2014
(in millions 60 kg bags)
60
50
Production
2013/2014
40
30
Exports
2013/2014
20
10
0
18
The second biggest producer is Vietnam, with 27.5 million 60 kg bags in the year 2013/2014
(International Coffee Organization, 2015a). Vietnam has a specific natural condition that
makes it well suited for cultivating Robusta coffee beans, of which it is also the main global
producer. After reunification in 1976, Vietnam introduced coffee as a harvest product and got
great results in brief time thanks to its tropical climate. However, as a tea drinking country,
very little of what is produced is then consumed domestically (Nora, 2013). As shown in
Figure 4, Vietnam sells most all of its coffee production, hence narrowing the gap to Brasil,
its biggest competitor, with exports reaching 24.7 million 60 kg bags (approximately 21.6%
of the global exports) (International Coffee Organization, 2015a).
In the year 2013/2014 Colombia was the third biggest producer. Its farmers concentrated on
high quality Arabica coffee beans, producing 12.12 million 60 kg bags and exporting 10.8
million 60 kg bags (approximately 10.1% of total global exports). Colombia was historically,
together with Brasil, the largest producer of coffee. It’s second position was lost to Vietnam
in the ‘90s (Ponte, 2002).
In Asia, where mostly the Robusta variety is harvested, the 4th and 5th producers, Indonesia
and India, exported respectively 10 million 60 kg bags (approximately 8.8% of global
exports) and 5 million 60 kg bags (4.4% of global exports) in the year 2013/2014. For both it
represents almost 100% of what they produce (International Coffee Organization, 2015c). The
6th and 7th positions are occupied by Honduras and Peru, both Arabica producers and both
are exporting almost the same amount, 4 millions 60 kg bags, which is approximately 3.6% of
the total global export (International Coffee Organization, 2015c).
Uganda and Ethiopia, the only African countries present in the top 10, occupy the 8th and 9th
positions. Interestingly, they respectively produce Robusta and Arabica coffee, with exports
of 3.5 million 60 kg bags for Uganda (approximately 3% of total global exports) and of 3
million 60 kg bags for Ethiopia (approximately 2.6% of total global exports) (International
Coffee Organization, 2015c). Similarly to Brasil, Ethiopians are also large coffee consumers,
as they consume domestically half of their whole production.
Mexico is the last on the top ten list and with Honduras it is the representative of the Central
American qualitative Arabica variety, with a production of 3.9 million 60 kg bags and exports
of 2.4 million 60 kg bags in the year 2013/2014 (which is approximately the 2.7% of the total
global exports) (International Coffee Organization, 2015c).
2.1.2 Coffee imports and consumption
Exports are directed toward traditional coffee markets, mainly Europe and USA. Between the
two markets, Europe was the destination of the majority of coffee exports in the year
2013/2014: one third of global imports, 72 million 60 kg bags, goes to European Union
(64.3% of all global imports). USA follows with 27 million 60 kg bags (24.04% of all global
imports) (International Coffee Organization, 2015b). As noted before, the majority of
19
exported coffee arrives to Europe from South America, more precisely from Brasil. On the
European market the major importing countries are: Germany (21.2 million 60 kg bags), Italy
(8.8 million 60 kg bags), France (6.7 million 60 kg bags), Belgium (5.5 million 60 kg bags)
and Spain (5.1 million 60 kg bags) (International Coffee Organization, 2015b).
The level of imports however doesn’t coincide with the amount of effective consumption, as
the companies acquiring the coffee re-export it to other developed countries or in some cases
to the same supplying countries after processing it. The global consumption for the year 2013
was estimated at 147.3 millions 60 kg bags (International Coffee Organization, 2015c). In
2013, the European Union was the biggest consumer with a total of 50 million 60 kg bags, of
which the major consumer is Germany, with 9 million 60 kg bags. Comparing imports and
exports, we can notice how the difference is especially evident for Germany. On the other
hand, for the year 2013 consumption in Italy was at 5.6 million 60 kg bags, France at 5.7
million 60 kg bags, Belgium was at 1.2 million 60 kg bags and Spain was at 3.5 million 60 kg
bags.
Millions
Figure 5. Major European Union’s major importers in 2013/2014 (in million 60 kg bags)
25
20
15
Imports
Consumption
10
5
0
Germany
Italy
France
Belgium
Spain
Source: International Coffee Organization, Trade Statistics Tables, 2015b
Looking at the level of consumption in each country, USA leads with 23 million 60 kg bags
consumed, followed by Brasil with 20 million 60 kg bags and Germany with 9 million 60 kg
bags (International Coffee Organization, 2015b). Traditional high consumption markets, like
USA and some European countries, are stagnant and their growth is low. This is steadily
changing the focus of many companies towards new markets. The coffee industry has
nevertheless been expanding and in the last 20 years the demand has been rising in both
emerging markets and in exporting countries.
20
Table 2. Consumption per country in 2013/2014 (in million 60 kg bags)
Country
USA
Brazil
Germany
Japan
France
Consumption per country
23.4
20.1
9.4
7.4
5.7
Source: International Coffee Organization, Trade Statistics Tables, 2015b
As shown in Figure 6, exporting countries started to appreciate this beverage more in recent
years, with their coffee consumption increasing from 21% to 31% of total global
consumption, while in developing countries the consumption has risen from 12% to 19% of
total global consumption. Increased consumption in non-traditional markets has decreased the
global leading position of traditional markets from almost 70% to 50% of total global
consumption (International Coffee Organization, 2015c).
The distribution of coffee consumption changes from the perspective of the consumption per
capita. Although USA is the largest market for coffee, with a consumption per capita of 4 kg
per year, USA is lagging behind many countries, as for example to European countries that
have an average of 5 kg per capita (SASI Group & Mark Newman, 2006).
Figure 6. Percentages of world consumption from 1993 to 2013
Source: International Coffee Organization, Annual Review 2013/2014, 2015c
Consumption per capita in Europe varies, from a maximum of 12 kg in Scandinavian
countries, that are the most addicted to hot beverages due to a more hostile climate, to a
minimum of 2 kg in Eastern countries. Not surprisingly, the top five countries in per capita
consumption in 2013 were all Nordic countries: Finland (12 kg per capita), Norway (9.9 kg
per capita), Iceland (9.0 kg per capita), Denmark (8.7 kg per capita) and Netherlands (8.4
21
million kg bangs) (Kimeshan N., 2013).
Figure 7. Coffee consumption per capita in kg in 2013
14 kg
12 kg
10 kg
8 kg
6 kg
Consumption per capita
4 kg
2 kg
0 kg
Source: Kimeshan N., Top 10 Coffee Consumer Countries, 2013; SASI Group (University of Sheffield) and
Mark Newman (University of Michigan), Coffee consumption, 2006
2.1.3 Coffee market historical background and market regulations
Historically, the first evidence of coffee cultivation was found in Ethiopia in the 9th century
and apparently the name “coffee” also has Ethiopian origin, coming from Kaffa, a region in
Ethiopia where the coffee bushes grow abundantly also in the wild (The history of coffee,
2015). However, many assume that the first coffee dates to the 15th century and that it
originates from a country near to Arabic populations, more specifically the region of Yemen
(Gray, 1998; Joo et al., 2010). It was from the Arabic peninsula that coffee was spread to the
whole world. In the Middle Ages coffee beans were eaten together with the cherries, while the
leaves brewed or chewed. Only in the 16th century coffee beans started to be roasted and
people from the Arabic peninsula first enjoyed the brewed drink. This became the preferred
consumption method. Thanks to its popularity coffee houses, places where the middle class
was lingering in various social and intellectual activities, political discussion and all type of
debates that were accompanied by a cup of coffee, started to open everywhere (The history of
coffee, 2015). Coffee became part of the Arabic culture and some referred to it as the “wine
of Islam”, because they used it as a substitute of wine. In the next centuries the same positive
trend spread to many European countries.
With the beginning of the 17th century, with the explorations of new continents and discovery
of new exotic foods, coffee was imported to Europe by travelers coming back from distant
and unknown regions. Some were welcoming it with reluctance or opposition, condemning it
as the “devil invention of Satan” or as unhealthy (The history of coffee, 2015). However, such
22
comments didn’t stop the coffee trade and its global expansion. Indeed, at the end of the
century, coffee houses had become important meeting places and center of commerce in
American and Europe as well. For example it was there that the Llyod’s of London come to
creation (The history of coffee, 2015). With colonialism the colonial lands became very
popular for coffee growing and many of them are today its main producing countries (Gray,
1998).
With industrialization and spreading of global trade, coffee production and consumption
involved almost all countries in the world. Today the negotiations are regulated by the
International Coffee Agreement (ICA) and supervised by the International Coffee
Organization (International Coffee Organization, 2015c). Until the 60s, Brasil and Colombia
had a monopoly on the coffee market, controlling between 75% and 90% of the green coffee
production (Biotto et al., 2012). As new players entered the market there was a need for a
common regulatory system which in 1962 made the main producing countries together with
USA, the biggest importing country at the time, sign a long term coffee agreement, the ICA.
ICA created a formal and relatively stable system that set coffee prices and allocated export
quotas to each country in order to “introduce and manage initiatives designed to improve the
functioning of the global coffee market through international cooperation” (International
Coffee Organization, 2013, pp. 2). Under the ICA governments played a fundamental role in
the trading: they created bureaucracy and institutions that facilitated the work and the political
negotiations and set entry barrier to the coffee markets (Ponte, 2002). However, soon after,
the countries understood that they needed an authority that would monitor and stimulate
international cooperation between exporters and importers in the coffee market trade.
Thereforea a year after the Agreement, an intergovernmental organization for coffee, the ICO,
which today represents 95% of the producing and 78% of the consuming countries, was
founded (International Coffee Organization, 2015c).
Due to the changes in the market, especially due to the entrance and strengthening of different
players, a new Agreement was negotiated in 1989, after 30 years of stable regime. But
disagreements between the countries ended in no concrete resolutions and the USA, that had a
fundamental role in the market as the main importer, withdrew from the ICA. Consequently,
ICA’s established price equilibrium and the institutions that were controlling the exports
collapsed with it (Ponte, 2002). The market, which was predominately controlled by Arabica
sellers, was saturated and another coffee variety, the Robusta variety, appeared in the market.
The introduction of the Robusta variety, which is a low quality coffee bean and is therefore
positioned on a lower price range than Arabica, weakened the coffee prices and made them
more volatile than before (Biotto et al., 2012). The impact of the weakened ICA and the new
prices affected growers the most, their incomes dropping from 20% of the total income to
13%, to the advantage of consuming countries (Ponte, 2002). The general liberalization and
deregulation in producing countries increased the strength of coffee roasters in consuming
countries in comparison to others members of the distribution channel, which led to a higher
market concentration. Roasters became dominant in the market, setting trade requirements for
suppliers as an entry barrier, supplying coffee from many countries, applying new
technologies and specializing in the production of many specialty coffees (Ponte, 2002).
23
The changes just discussed marked the beginning of a coffee crisis in which, however, ICO
continued to act as a forum where countries could freely raise and discuss problems in the
market (International Coffee Organization, 2015c). New Agreements were created, with the
last entering into force in the 2007. Nevertheless, the market remains unstable to date, with
volatile prices, strong roasters and producers with almost no negotiation power (International
Coffee Organization, 2015c). The most concerning problem of the market in recent times is
that many producers are forced to abandon their production. The situation is being taken more
and more into exam by the coffee organizations and a first solution, developed into the Fair
Trade, is being adopted for them (Goldschein, 2011).
2.1.4 The COO and the production process
Like for other low involvement commodities for coffee as well, the raw materials, in the case
of coffee the coffee beans, are subject to so many transformations, that the value of the
product, or the coffee cup, at the end of the production process is determined mainly through
the efficiency of such process. Therefore, when talking about coffee’s COO, more than
making distinction between coffee on basis of the origin of the beans, consumers evaluate
coffee based on the origin of the processed or roasted coffee. There is indeed a difference
perceived in drinking coffee sold by Italian, Turkish, German or American companies based
on the processes used in each of those countries.
In the coffee market there are three main actors that can influence the quality of coffee:



the growers, that can be identified as suppliers of the initial input;
the roasters, the companies that transform the bean into the roasted coffee;
the bartenders, that prepare the coffee in the cases when the final product is delivered
to the consumer through the hotel, restaurant & cafè distribution channel (Ho.re.ca.
channel).
In the next chapters, I will describe in detail each step of the production process, from the
supply of beans to the final distribution of coffee. The efficiency and control in each step
determine consumers satisfaction or dissatisfaction and create a certain reputation for the
companies and their countries.
2.1.4.1 Coffee supply
While the final consumers buy roasted coffee from the retailers, the roaster company will be
provided with green coffee beans from the growers. Usually, right after the rain season, the
growers start picking the red cherries from the coffee plants. The cherries are not traded
immediately, but are first sent to factories were the fruits are dried or washed, the beans are
extracted from the cherries and the parchment surrounding the bean is removed (GonzalezPerez & Gutierrez-Viana, 2012). The quality of the coffee can be compromised in this phase
based on the technique used to obtain the coffee bean: drying is a low cost process in which
24
the cherries are wholly dried and then the beans are extracted, however the beans obtained
from this one-step process are of low quality; the best cleaning technique is the washing
process, in which the cherries are pulped, the remaining coffee bean washed and then dried.
The higher is the amount of water used, the cleaner will be the coffee bean and the higher its
quality (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2005).
Raw coffee beans, referred to as green coffee, are sold on the local or international markets
(Gonzalez-Perez & Gutierrez-Viana, 2012). As the initial product doesn’t have any particular
trait when it is sold on the markets the competition is high and is based on price (Monk &
Ryding, 2007). The companies that acquire and process the green coffee are called roasters.
Before reaching the roaster’s facilities, coffee beans undergo some geographical distances that
can also degrade their flavour. Therefore, it is fundamental that the coffee beans are kept in a
proper storage that doesn’t damage their quality on the way from the coffee growers’
countries and the coffee roasters’ countries (Biotto et al., 2012).
2.1.4.2 The coffee production process
The coffee industry can be considered pretty challenging, not only due to the high number of
competitors, but also due to efficiency requirements in all areas of operations. Each step in the
process is critical for the final product’s taste, that can range from a high quality aroma to an
extremely poor charred flavour (Joo et al., 2010). The production process of coffee beans
involves a series of steps, usually five: milling, blending, roasting, cooling and grinding.
Among them, the most fundamental and common to all companies are the blending and
roasting phase (Biotto et al., 2012).
Before the roasting, in the milling phase, the roasters ascertain that the coffee beans are
polished and ready for the transformation, removing the dirt and residual materials that may
be clinging on the coffee beans (Ukers, 1992). The right amount and right type of cleaned
beans should be selected prior to the roasting, in order to create an unique blend that would
translate in a valuable product (Miscelare e tostare, 2015). To be differentiated from the other
roasters in the market, each roasting company prepares its own blend, meaning they combine
coffee beans of different quality and coming from different sites. Coffee beans can have
different tastes if they are cultivated in different regions and sometimes the coffee blend
flavour can be accentuated with various ingredients, like vanilla or hazelnuts (Coffee blend,
2015). In that way the coffee’s body acquires a unique aroma and taste. Blending is usually
done before the roasting, so that the resulting product will have a more uniform, consistent
taste and scent (Produzione e lavorazione del caffè, 2015).
In the roasting phase the coffee beans of light green colour are roasted and turn dark brown.
In this stage the aroma of coffee emerges. The raw coffee is exposed to heat that decomposes
and transforms coffee beans, making them suitable for consumption. The temperature is
gradually increased till approximately 200°C, when the beans change to brown color. Thanks
to the high temperature selected for the roasting, many chemical reactions are emitted and the
sensory qualities like aroma and taste surface (Nora, 2013). During the process the machine is
25
constantly moving the beans that increase in volume and release many aromatic components,
which successively gives aroma to the coffee (Miscelare e tostare, 2015). After the roasting,
the beans have to be immediately cooled, paying attention to not expose them too much to
oxygen that can downgrade the blend.
Consumers can buy roasted coffee in the form of roasted beans or powder, which is achieved
through grinding. Grinding is the last operation done on coffee, but not the less complex. The
majority of companies decide to perform it at the end of the production process, because if it
was to be executed by an inexpert hand, it could ruin the coffee taste entirely: grinding
roasted beans into a too coarse powder produces a watery beverage with little cream, while a
too fine powder has a bitter flavour and inconsistent cream (Nora, 2013).
2.1.4.3 Coffee Distribution
The coffee’s aromatic properties last just for a reduced number of months, which translates in
fewer coffee stocks and the necessity of rapid consumption. However, the better the
packaging, the longer the coffee can be preserved (Produzione e lavorazione del caffè, 2015).
Coffee can be conserved in different containers: a vacuum packing or a rigid container in tin
or aluminum, that will preserve the product and won’t allow the penetration of oxygen.
Roasters can sell coffee to the final consumers through different channels: for domestic
consumption consumer purchase coffee through retail shops or owned shops, while when they
want to consume it outside it is served in hotels, restaurants and cafès (Ho.re.ca. channel) or
automatic coffee machines (automatic distribution channel) (Bertoldi, Giachino, & Marenco,
2012). According to a recent research (International Coffee Agreement, 2012), home
consumption prevails in 21 major consuming countries where more than 70% of coffee is
bought in retail stores for home consumption.
Although the majority of consumers buy coffee through the retail channel, many roasters
distribute their product only through the Ho.re.ca. channel and can institute intensive training
for coffee brewing. Again, as for all the other steps that transform coffee, the taste can be
ruined if brewing is carried out improperly. Since bartenders are the mediators between the
company and the final consumers, and therefore influence the consumers’ satisfaction with
their service, roasters aiming at quality for their products, will use their knowledge to train
them. Biotto et al. (2012, p. 225) stated that “a final cup of its coffee is 50 per cent due to the
blend quality and the transformation/packaging processes, and 50 per cent due to the way in
which the drink is prepared and consumed”. When served to consumer, the right amount of
coffee must be chosen and the excessive powder cleaned (Nora, 2013). For coffee producers
to achieve a competitive advantage and keep a high reputation, the services provided in the
shops, such as cleaning and maintanance of the machine, are also fundamental. The water
used, the cleanliness of the cup, the functionality and the ability to properly use the coffee
machine are examples of objective factors that can influence the final taste assessment by the
consumers and their satisfaction level (Biotto et al., 2012). Consumers’ loyalty will be
26
achieved if the consumers are satisfied with the service offered, which depends mainly on the
capability, knowledge and motivation of the bartenders (Monk & Ryding, 2007).
2.1.5 Preparing the coffee drinks and coffee types
During the centuries many entrepreneurs have assembled different coffee machines in order to
find the perfect match between coffee beans and the correct way of processing it (Ukers,
1992). When those methods spread to other countries, they created in this category even more
awareness of the COO effects. For each machine, particular guidelines with different
extraction time, dose, water level, temperature and coffee thickness, should be followed in
order to brew a gratifying cup of coffee (How to brew coffee, 2015). Each brewing machine
asks for a specific level of fineness of the ground coffee (How to grind coffee, 2015).
Among the many existing brewing methods and machines the five most used ones will be
here presented. The five levels of coffee coarseness are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
coarse
medium
fine
extra fine
Turkish
On the other hand the most popular machines connected to them are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
French press
Drip coffee maker
Moka pot
Espresso machine
Turkish coffee maker
Coarse can be considered the biggest size of ground coffee. Coarse coffee is not perceived as
coffee powder because coffee pieces can be distinguished visibly (How to grind coffee,
2015). It is used with the French press brew method. The French press was invented in France
but from the 19th century it was improved and today it is largely used in England. Equally to
the preparation of herbal tea, boiling water and ground coffee are steeped together in a
cylindrical glass mug where they are left to sit for 5 to 6 minutes and then pressured down for
30 seconds (La French press, 2015).
Medium sized ground coffee is the most used method in the USA and it employs the drip
coffee maker. The drip or filter brewing method is said to have developed and spread in
Germany in the 20th century. Hot water is poured through thickly ground coffee, previously
put into a filter, made from absorbing paper, placed above a jug. Today filter coffee is central
to Japanese drinking habits, while drip electronic makers are the most popular machines used
in Northern America and Northern European countries (Il caffè filtro, 2015).
27
Fine and extra fine level sizes are both used for the preparation of Italian coffee, the well
known espresso. Italy has two different machines for its preparation. The true old method to
prepare espresso employs a large and sophisticated machine used by bartenders which
requires extra fine coffee grinding (How to grind coffee, 2015). With time the market offered
to Italian consumers also a domestic, smaller machine, called moka pot with which consumer
can taste a more unrefined grind, big as table salt (La moka, 2015).
The thinnest size is that for the Turkish coffee brew, called also ibrik, which is also the oldest
method and the one that was probably used for the longest time. Adopted since the 15th
century in the Middle East, to prepare Turkish coffee, ground coffee is mixed together with
water and sugar to obtain a sugary beverage, where sugar grains are visible on the top of it.
The mix is heated in a particular bronze kettle, that looks like a vase with a long handle (Caffè
alla turca, 2015).
In the coffee market further distinction can be made also between roasted or ground coffee,
soluble coffee and the capsules. The capsules were recently introduced into the market and
are gaining popularity, while soluble or instant coffee is an older, more immediate alternative
for the consumers. Comparing the biggest consuming countries, in mostly all of them the
soluble coffee consumption is really low: it is especially apreciated in the UK, where 75% of
the population drink it, but in other countries like USA or Italy its presence is minimal
(respectively 10% and below 1%) (Why do Britons drink so much instant coffee?, 2015).
According to a recent research (International Coffee Agreement, 2012, pag 6), in 2011 among
21 main consuming countries, Russia, UK, Turkey and Ukraine are the only ones that
registered a trend of higher level of soluble coffee consumption than other types of coffee. A
different scenario can be seen in emerging countries: although it’s not as popular in the
developed world, soluble coffee has reached the 50% share of world coffee consumption
(International Coffee Organization, 2013c).
From these globally most used methods, adaptations occur in different countries. Many small
variations that can account as specialties of the coffee industry were developed gaining
recognition among the consumers. For example coffees can be grouped by their temperature
(iced coffee, shakerato where espresso is shaked with ice cubes), by country (Greek cold
instant caffè, Vienna coffé with milk and cream, Indian filter coffee with cowry, Irish coffee
with whisky and cream), intensity of caffeine (decaffeinated coffee with small amount of
caffeine), other added ingredients (caffè macchiato which is coffee with milk, Cafè Touba
which is filtered coffee where spices are added, caffè miele where honey and cinnamon are
added to the espresso, marocchino which is espresso based coffee with cocoa powder, chai
latte where coffee is decorated with milk and tea, Eikaffee which is coffee with icecream)
(The different types of coffee drinks, 2015).
These different coffee preparation methods adapt to and represent the tasting preferences of
different cultures. However the majority of those coffee types stay local, while only few reach
global presence, one of them being espresso coffee (The 4 Most Popular Coffee Brewing
28
Methods, 2015). When consumers think about COO connected to the coffee they consume,
they associate the COO with the country where the specific coffee and its preparation method
are known to originate from. Therefore espresso is identified with the Italian market, which
will be explored in the next chapter and espresso popularity illustrated. Next Italian consumer
habits, ritual and use will be presented.
2.2 The Italian coffee market
Italy, home of espresso coffee, is an important player in the coffee market, known for its
coffee tradition and innovations.
In 2013 Italy was the 3th biggest importing country, with 8.8 million 60 kg bags, after USA
and Germany. With regard to consumption it falls to 6th position, with 5.6 million 60 kg bags,
as USA, Germany, Brasil, Japan and France are all countries that consume more than Italy
(International Coffee Organization, 2015a). The sum of consumption of those countries
amounts to almost the half (48.7%) of the total global consumption of coffee (International
Coffee Organization, 2015a). When it comes to consumption per capita, Italy ranks even
lower, with 5.6 kg per person per year, which is still more than the European average of 5kg,
but not not enought to attain top 10 position. The reason can be found in Italian coffee
drinking culture (European Coffee Federation, 2014). The sizes of the cups used in Italy are
much smaller than those used in other countries. For example while in USA the cup size can
reach 12 or 20 oz, in Italy it is just 6 oz. Such diffrence makes it difficult for Italian
consumers to be present among the first consuming positions.
Table 3. Italy’s import, consumption and re-export in 2013/2014
Global position
Import
Consumption
Re-export
3rd
6th
4th
Quantity in million
60 kg bags
8.8
5.6
3.1
Percentage of total global
import/consumption/re-export
7.9%
3.8%
8.9%
Italy is also one of those countries that stocks a considerable part of the production in order to
re-export it successively. Almost a third of the annual profits from this market are used to
cover the re-export costs. In 2013 Italy was the 4th major re-exporting country (Comitato
italiano caffè, 2014). The re-export is directed mainly toward France and Germany in Europe,
USA, Russia and Australia (Caffè - I dati del mercato Italia, 2015).
In Italy in the hot drinks sector the coffee industry is dominant, occupying the 70% of the
market (Il caso Ilko coffee international, 2015). In fact just the 10% of the whole population
abstains from drinking coffee. Italians enjoy to drink coffee few times per day, with an
29
average of 3 small cups of coffee per day (Italians: The 7 stereotypes of coffee drinkers,
2015). Coffee is consumed mainly at breakfast and morning hours (75.2% in Italy) (I numeri
del caffè, 2015). The retail channels (supermarkets, discount shops) is the most used channel
for acquisition and in Italy it represents the 65.7% of the coffee purchases. Consumers that
drink coffee just at home are a remarkable 29.6% of the population, while only 2.6% choose
to drink it only outside. The majority of consumers, 57.8% of Italians, drink its coffee at both
locations (Osservatorio internazionale, n.d.).
As other industries in Italy also coffee industry is subject to the peculiar system of SMEs. It
consist of 700 producing companies and 7,000 employees that contribute to the creation of
3.1 billions of annual turnover (Comitato italiano caffè, 2014). Fifteen percent of those
companies operate through a district, which is located in Trieste. Trieste is an important
coffee reality as the port clears through customs the 30% of all the Italian exported coffee
(Osservatorio nazionale distretti italiani, n.d.). Eighty percecent of the imported coffee that
Italian companies roast is originating from Brasil, Vietnam, India, Uganda and Indonesia, so
Italians consume both Robusta and Arabica coffee (Caffè - I dati del mercato Italia, 2015): in
the Northern regions a medium dark color derived from Arabica is the perfect solution for a
coffee blend, while in the Sounthern Italy, where robustness and bitter taste prevail, darker,
mainly Robusta blend is preferred (Nora, 2013).
Among the many SMEs, four are the major coffee brands: Lavazza, illy, Kimbo and
Segafredo Zanetti, all four are family-based companies. The presence of those companies in
the two distribution channels, at home and outside production, is not equally distributed: in
the supermarkets where just the major brands are located on the shelves those 4 companies
together capture the 70% of the retail sector, (Mercato del caffè, 2015), while they represent
just the 30% of the Ho.re.ca. channel, showing again how much in fact the market is
fragmented (Lavazza, n.d.; Lavazza, il caffè italiano che punta all’estero, 2015). Among them
Lavazza is the major Italian coffee company domestically, Segafredo Zanetti the major Italian
coffee representative abroad and illy is the major Italian high quality roaster company.
Lavazza was founded in 1895 and today represents overall 44.9% of the Italian coffee market
with a turnover of 1.3 billion euro for the year 2014 (Lavazza, n.d.). It generates 54% of their
revenue in Italy, which on the other hand shows also an intense presence on the foreign
markets: their coffee is exported to other 90 countries were in 2014 17 billion cups were
consumed. Their blends are based on Robusta beans and the most sold product is Qualità
rossa.
Especially liked in Southern regions, Kimbo is the second biggest Italian company in terms of
market share (10%) although it was founded relatively recently, in the 1963 (Mollica, 2012).
Robusta is again the main coffee bean used. Kimbo sells with its blend 170 million of
turnover in 2012 (Kimbo, 2013). It is present on 40 foreign markets where it opted for
adaptation strategies, but still highlighting its Italian origin. Those foreign markets represent
10% of its income, coming especially from France, were it is the third biggest coffee player
with 11,000 retail store opened (Mollica, 2012).
30
Another company that sells Robusta coffee is the Massimo Zanetti Beverage Group, that with
the brand Segafredo Zanetti, with less than 50 years of operation. It is the Italian coffee
company selling more abroad than at home, where Italy accounts just for 11% of its whole
sales that produced in 2014 781 million euro (bi Massimo Zanetti Beverage Group, n.d.). In
Italy Segafredo with 6% of market shares is considered one of the leader in the market. The
company is present more on the retail channel (37%) than Ho.re.ca. channel (22%). (Massimo
Zanetti Beverage Group, n.d.).
Following, Illy is among those companies represent the 3% of the market and it is the most
differentiated of Italian companies, the one that promote its coffee through it’s dedication to
high quality production (Biotto et al., 2012). It positions itself as a niche company both at
home and abroad, serving just the highest quality demanding consumers and registering
profits for 373.9 million euros in the 2014 (illy in breve, 2015). Illy is also steadily expanding
in the foreign luxury product markets from where almost half of its profit comes from.
Present in 140 countries that consume more than 6 million of cups per day, illy detains 4
quality certification and serves a blend that has a mix of 9 different coffee beans of the finest
100% Arabica quality (illy in breve, 2015).
2.2.1 Espresso
When someone talks about coffee in Italy the connection goes automatically to espresso.
Espresso is a strong and bitter coffee blend, that is consumed in small amounts due to its
dense consistency (What is a coffee blend?, 2015). Many types of coffee are consumed in
Italy, but espresso is the ultimate representative of Italian coffee culture known everywhere
for its high quality, delicious flavour, charming smell and unique preparation method. As the
first choice of 74% consumers, espresso can be considered the most loved and consumed
coffee in Italy (I numeri del caffè, 2015).
The name espresso, which would be translated in English as express or rapid, wants to
indicate its rapidity of the preparation or a coffee made on the spot (Nora, 2013). To prepare
the Italian espresso, Italian coffee machine that was developed and improved through the
centuries is used, extracting a coffee that’s different from that of a standard and simple
preparations in other countries. The use of water and ground coffee is fundamental for all
machines, but opposite to what other brewing machines do, the espresso machine applies a
lower pressure on the water in order to not modify the inner characteristics of the roasted
coffee (Nora, 2013). The pressurized water is forced through to reach the coffee where it stays
in contact with the coffee grounds long enough to draw out as much flavour as possible, to
then find a path through it and begin to be poured into the cup (The 4 Most Popular Coffee
Brewing Methods, 2015). Acidity levels and the aroma persist untouched and the obtained
coffee is much denser, has a stronger taste and it presents itself in a deep dark color than
coffee obtained with other machines. Finally espresso has on the surface a light brown, rich
crema, a defining characteristic that today distinguish it from other types of coffee (Morris,
2008).
31
The history of Italian coffee drinking starts in the 17th century, when Italian ports were the
only European locations where the protective Arabs agreed to trade their coffee beans (The
history of coffee, 2015). First European coffee houses were opened in major Italian cities and
the notorious Caffè Florian in Venice or Caffè Greco in Rome began their successful
activities (Morris, 2008). At first, coffee was served and prepared in the Turkish manner, but
soon Italians began to study and experiment on their own coffee preparation method. After
many attempts, with perseverance they found the preparation method for espresso. Their first
espresso machine was completed in 1884, however it was not until 1905 that the machines
were commercialized and to appear in bars, Italian coffee shops, with the first called the
Ideale by La Pavoni of Milano (Storia delle macchine per caffè, 2015). Those machines
offered a distinctive coffee and marked the beginning of Italian coffee drinking culture that is
today applauded and seen as an icon of Italy itself (Morris, 2008).
With time also home production required its ideal coffee machine, which was much smaller
and simpler than the bar’s coffee machine. First with the Napoletana and after 1933 with the
today’s most spread Moka invented by Alfonso Bialetti, Italians can enjoy their coffee even at
home. The Napoletana machine is constructed from two containers, one above the other and
divided by a filter where coffee is placed: when the water in the lower container reaches the
boiling point, the coffee machine is rotated, the water goes through the roasted coffee and
extract the essences from it. On the other hand, the moka is composed of three parts, but the
preparation is the same. The difference is the final step where the coffee machine is not
rotated, but the coffee rises through the steam pressure in the upper part of the pot
(Spagnuolo, 2014).
In the ‘60s, thanks also to the growth of mass consumer society in Italy, the new wealthy
population transferred the consumption of coffee from home to bars (Mercato italiano del
caffè 2013-2014, 2015). Today bars are the location where coffee is majorly consumed when
out of home (Mercato italiano del caffè 2013-2014, 2015). Although bars’ offer goes from
drinks to food, coffee is theirs most consumed product, so that an alternative denomination
used for bars is just simply caffè (the Italian word for coffee). As in the ‘60s so today people
gather there to socialize and taste coffee (Morris, 2008).
Today in Italy the number of bars increased to 200,000 which realize the 21.4% of the sales in
the market (Cercato come il petrolio, amato come l’acqua, 2015). The ’70 marked the
beginning of the Italian coffee branding, as the major Italian companies began to expand also
in this channel. The number of bars grew exponentially: from 95,727 in 1961, to 118,029 in
1971, while in comparison the number of the restaurants, stayed almost the same (Morris,
2008).
Espresso’s predominance was registered also in other world countries. In fact Italy represents
just a third of all the world produced espresso (Scagliarini, 2010). Italian espresso is also the
most important force driving the increase in coffee world consumption (Nora, 2013).
Notwithstanding the various preparation methods and adaptions to local needs and tastes,
Italian espresso currently remains the main coffee to imitate. In his book Nora (2013, pag.
32
220) said: “Italy earns great prestige in the coffee world not only thanks to its Espresso, but to
all its operators in the field as depositories of this precious culture”. Abroad the 500
Segafredo stores, 300 Lavazza stores and 220 illy retail store boosted its global fame
(Scagliarini, 2010).
In the last 15 years the espresso coffee machines market has been saturated or not appealing
for traditional coffee drinking countries where the registered sales results decreasing, but on
the other hand their sales are steadily increasing in the developing countries. The major
increase was registered in Asia, were in 2013 purchases of coffee machines have increased for
22% (Comitato italiano caffè, 2014). However on the whole, the exports of espresso coffee
have almost tripled, indicating it’s constant popularity (Comitato italiano caffè, 2014).
2.2.2 Foreign companies in the Italian coffee market
Italian coffee market is highly competitive and saturated, because it is characterized by a
multitude of companies and retail stores that compete on price and invest heavily in
promotion (Mercato del caffè, 2015). The majority of those companies are domestic firms.
Unique as it is, but not for Italian industries, the coffee market includes few foreign
competitors mainly due to two reasons: the government protectionism and the Made in Italy
membership. As said before Italian market is dominated by SMEs that don’t have the abilities
to compete with big foreign MNCs. As Italian companies, especially the one representing the
Made in Italy, are a valuable Italian heritage those companies reunite in the district systems
and the government is bailing them out as well: entry barriers are really high for the majority
of traditional and valuable markets, with the consequence that only a few foreign companies
are present in Made in Italy product markets (Becattini, 1989). Italian coffee is also
considered a prestigious member of the Made in Italy products.
In such a market, Italians are considered demanding consumers, searchers of high quality and
holders of a good esthetic sense (Stile italiano e italian way of life: carte vincenti per il made
in italy?, 2006). In particular, when it comes to coffee generally Italian consumers are defined
as “coffee aficionados who will not tolerate (or visit) an establishment that has bad coffee”
(The world of Italian coffee, 2015). In fact according to a recent research from an Italian
consulting and research agency, Astra Ricerche (2015), 70% of all interviewed Italians drink
coffee because they appreciate the flavour and 65% regard smell an important element as well
(Ghedini, 2015). Italian consumers search for high quality coffee and could perceive domestic
coffee of higher quality compared to the coffee from other countries, or in other words,
foreign coffee could have a negative COO effect.
Foreign competitors have entered the market as first players or with joint ventures. Among
the foreign companies in Italy the two biggest coffee MNCs in the world, Nestlé and
Mondelez International, stand out and are especially appreciated because they were the first
movers in two important coffee categories, decaffeinated and capsule coffee.
Nestlé is the undisputed global leader in the beverage and food sector with 91.6 billion euro
33
of sales revenue in 2014, to which coffee beverages contributed for around 10% (Nestlé,
2014). The two products that are sold on the Italian market are Nescafé, the company’s
soluble coffee since 1938, and Nespresso, the newest capsule coffee (Nestlé, 2014). Soluble
coffee is not really popular in Italy, with just 1% of the whole population drinking it, but the
contrary can be said for Nespresso. In the last decades the Swiss company has surprised the
market and increased in popularity with an innovative product that it’s simple to use and still
preserves high quality of coffee (Scarci, 2013).
Mondelez International is another important competitor. Formerly known as Kraft, in the year
2014 its coffee sales generated almost 55 billion euro (Griseri, 2014). Among many beverage
and food industry products decaffeinated coffee brand Hag entered Italian market already in
1920 and became famous especially thanks to television spots (Inventario Italiano, n.d.).
When it comes to decaffeinated coffee and capsules unexpectedly Italians generally refer to
foreign products: decaffeinated coffee by Hag and coffee capsules by Nespresso, which
represents today the 7% and 3% of the coffee market respectively (E.S.E. consortium, n.d.;
Scarci, 2014). Recently, mostly for health or convenience reasons, capsule and decaffeinated
coffee are increasing their market share (Scarci, 2013). That has pushed other Italian coffee
producers like Lavazza and illy to extend their production also to these other niche markets,
pointing out the fact that even foreign companies can be trend makers in the Made in Italy
market.
The popularity of foreign brands is in contradiction with the common belief that Italians
prefer Italian products. It is a sign that Italian consumers in fact could be changing from being
ethnocentric consumers when coffee is concerned, as long as the coffee is functional and
delicious. In today’s globalized world we are surrounded by many brands and innovations, so
that border boundaries and diversities are slowly disappearing. Is COO and its effect, or in
other words Made in Italy, still an important factor in Italian coffee market? Do Italian
consumers pay attention to the origin of the coffee they are purchasing or selecting the retail
store due to coffee brand they are serving?
3 THE EMPIRICAL STUDY
The main objective of my study is to understand the purchasing patterns and desires of Italian
consumers in the domestic coffee market by empirically testing whether cognitive, affective
and normative mechanisms described in Chapter 1.3 shape the purchasing behaviour of Italian
consumers when considering coffee products. In other words this thesis intends to verify how
much salience has the COO among the other variables for Italian consumers in the purchasing
decision. As seen before COO is not a simple construct as it is linked to more than one
mechanism that are all considered as participating in the final consumer’s choice. Considering
each of these mechanisms, the influence Made in Italy holds at home and the Italian domestic
coffee economy and culture, I developed my research with the intent to answer the following
research questions:

How do Italian consumers choose a coffee products in Italian market?
34



When selecting among coffee products available in stores, do Italian consumers base
their final choice on the COO of coffee?
What is pushing Italian consumers to have a higher preference for domestic or rather
foreign coffee products?
Is there a mechanism more influencing than other in the choice of coffee products?
Two instruments of primary data collection were used to attain research goals: a qualitative
study based on a focus group where the connections among purchasing behaviour, COO and
coffee products were discussed and opinions on them shared among a small group of Italian
consumers; and a quantitative study, employed to test hypotheses via web survey. Then
conclusions on the Italian consumer’s behaviour while purchasing coffee are drawn and
suggestions on future practical application given with the help of this additional knowledge.
3.1 Qualitative research
For the qualitative research the focus group was chosen as an instrument of analysis. A focus
group is a technique where a moderator facilitates the discussion centered on a particular
argument between individuals forming a small group (Morgan, 1988). I conducted the focus
group among 8 Italian consumers in Italian language. The group included young women and
men of age between 24 and 28, students and workers, that were ascertained to regularly drink
coffee, had a certain knowledge on coffee production and experiences with domestic and
foreign coffee brands. The participants were informed on the purpose of my research and how
the collected data would be used.
For an easier execution of the focus group, I prepared a list of questions that helped me to
stimulate discussion and active exchange of opinions on the subject of my research. The
questions were broad enough to let the participants be exhaustive on their shopping routine,
let them disclose what and why they are in the end oriented more for one coffee product than
the other, getting their viewpoints on domestic versus foreign coffee products.
Taking in consideration that there were no correct or wrong answers, but just valid and
interesting opinion, each participant was asked to share freely his or her thoughts. The aim of
the meeting was to get a better understanding of the extent of COO’s involvement in the
purchasing decision within the Italian coffee market. Based on the knowledge and
experiences of the participants I received direct information on how much the variables
described in the first theoretical part of the thesis are actually considered at the time of
purchase and how they influence the choices of consumers in the coffee purchase. The
transcript of the discussion can be found in the Appendix A.
3.1.1 Focus group’s results
The focus group opened with a question addressing directly the elements or cues that the
participants mainly look at when making purchases at the grocery stores. The discussion was
first centered on food products and successively on coffee products alone in order to assess
35
the differences in their evaluations and the weight COO cue has among them. The participants
concluded that they evaluate the products based not just on one element, but on a few selected
cues. What changes from one product to the other is the order in which these cues are
considered. For coffee it was clear throughout the discussion that the most important factor is
unanimously the taste or quality of coffee. Alessia and Davide gave the following comments.
Alessia: “What I believe all of us search in coffee is quality, that it would taste
good.”
Davide: “There are many types of coffee, therefore I think that the choice depends on
the taste one searches for. I usually try many types of coffee brands, the one that I
remember the most for its good taste, becomes my first choice and I start to buy it
regularly.”
The participants confessed that they mainly linger on their favourite product even when
buying coffee, but if they would be in a situation where they would need to choose products
outside of their routine, the majority of them would rely on known brands, because they trust
them to be the most qualitative and therefore to satisfy their tastes and preferences the best.
Furthermore Maja mentioned how she is led also by instinct in her shopping: what catches her
eye is the packaging or the aspect of the product. On the other hand, other participants, like
Alessia, verify the products’ convenience: she consults the discount pamphlets regularly to
single out the products that stand out more for their low prices or perceived quality. A third
participant, Stefano, is more meticulous in his purchasing and gathers more information
before his final decision. He looks at the ingredients as he would prefer certain of them
commonly known as dangerous for our health to not be present. Specifically for coffee, Lea
and Annette highlight the distinction among Arabica or Robusta variety which changes
completely the taste of the beverage, Arabica being a higher quality ingredient and therefore
also more expensive.
Contrary to scholars’ beliefs on the importance COO holds for consumers, the participants
didn’t mention it in this first direct question. Alessandro’s impression is that Italians maybe
wrongly take for granted that the products found in the supermarket are mostly produced in
Italy. Maja and Alessia clarified that although it is not taken in consideration in all cases,
there are product categories where COO comes to the front, like for fresh products or products
that are typical only in one country and for its culture. Other participants agreed with their
opinion:
Maja: “If the products come from specific countries, because it’s the only place
where you can find them and consequently their price is usually high, then in that
case I check the origin to make sure that it comes from that and only that country. For
example that’s my reasoning for soy sauce, I will check that it comes from Japan.”
Alessia: “I think that COO is important, but not for all product categories. Generally I
pay attention to it for products that are fresh, like meat, vegetables or fish. Let’s say
that the products should be fresh to be good and of high quality. For example, the
36
other day I wanted to buy fish and I noticed that the kind I wanted was coming from
Greece. That was disturbing. Why should I buy fish from Greece when we can find
the same fish in our sea so close by? Coming here from so far, I don’t perceive it as
fresh and tasting.”
The discussion turned to the COO meaning in relation to coffee. As described in the chapter
1.2 and 1.3, the concept of COO fragmented in the last decades, creating difficulties in
defining and recognizing it, parallel with the changes in the production processes adopted by
companies (Hamzaoui & Meruka, 2006). During the conversation the term’s complexity
emerged as the participants attributed to COO multiple meanings and were unable to agree on
a single definition. The participants stated COO to be the place where the raw material comes
from, or considered it the location where the product is transformed, or even the place where
the companies that produce it have their headquarters. The discussion opened with Chiara’s
observation:
“For me, the COO indicates the place where the coffee is transformed. For example, I
consider the coffee roasted in Italy Italian coffee.”
A second more immediate interpretation is that COO means the origin of the raw materials,
which are coffee beans, irrespectful of the place where the transformation happens. On
Chiara’s comment, Davide argued:
“But If you think deeply about it, Lavazza’s coffee is in fact not Italian, but Brasilian,
if the beans comes from Brasil. I would say that COO is were the beans come from.
The roasting is made here, but the coffee, meant as the bean, cannot be found here.”
Annette affirmed how the same producers associate the origin of coffee to the plantation’s
location, because for example, illy launched coffee limited editions underlining their beans to
come from South Africa or Colombia. So with that, she said “it seems like the companies are
just intermediaries, between the growers and final consumers”. A third definition was then
given by Chiara that associates COO with the producers’ headquarters:
“COO means something else for me. I rarely check the origin of the coffee beans,
rather I check the origin of the company that roasts it. I’m searching for quality
products and I presume that companies from certain country pay more attention to
quality. I believe that Italian producers offer quality, I trust that they themselves
would have ascertained that the raw materials used in the production would be the
best. Instead of checking the origin of the coffee beans, I concentrate more on the
brand, because knowing if it is Italian or foreign, I will know who pays attention to
quality and who doesn’t.”
Taking these different points of view as all valid, Alessandro concluded:
“It seems like it depends. In the end, COO could indicate all of the things mentioned,
because for example Italy doesn’t harvest coffee plants, but coffee transformed in
Brasil, will taste differently from the one roasted in Italy, even though they use both
37
the same Brasilian coffee beans.”
Different meanings assigned to the COO disclosed different reactions in the evaluation
process. If COO is interpreted as the place where the coffee beans come from, the participants
would exclude it from their evaluation. Lea blamed uncertainty of the COO for that. She
explained that usually coffee, as the final product, is a mix of Arabica or Robusta coffee beans
coming from different countries. Therefore she ignores COO in her evaluation because one
single COO cannot be attributed to a coffee product and it will not in the end reveal the taste
the final coffee has. Maja argued that difficulties originates also in the labels, as it is hard to
understand them and the origin’s information is not always present. Davide on the other hand
more positively commented how he doesn’t consider the origin in advance, but can start to
pay attention to it when the taste of the coffee surprises him.
However, according to Chiara coffee beans are only the 50% of what determines coffee taste.
She specified that the quality of coffee is also dependent on the performances of the
companies that roast the coffee. As seen in the chapter 2.1.4 each step of the production adds
value to the final coffee product (Biotto et al., 2012; Nora, 2013). This COO consideration
made the participants compare Italian versus foreign roasters. Stefano suggested that certain
countries get excluded from the choice due to stereotypes or personal experiences.
“I usually don’t mind the origin, but however if the coffee is Made in China for
example based on my experiences with other Chinese products, I would definitely not
buy it. Certain countries definitely get excluded from my choices, because I don’t
trust the quality of their production, a bit due to my experience, a bit due to
stereotypes.”
On the other hand, the participants are aware that companies, foreign or domestic, can
nowadays adopt outsourcing as a form of cost reduction and generally disapprove of this
choice, especially for food categories, but only one, Annette, believes that Italian companies
turn to it.
Annette: “I don’t trust neither domestic brands on quality if they outsource the
production, because I doubt that the quality will be maintained in all the production
facilities. For example I know that Barilla entrusts the production of pasta to low cost
East European countries. I prefer to avoid big brands that use this kind of strategies,
because in my opinion the quality will be lower.”
However having particularly good opinion about the Italian food quality in Italy, the
participants are sure that at least for coffee, Italian companies produce it in domestic facilities
delivering to threir consumers high qualitative products. Domestic coffee received just
positive remarks and coffee preferences were clearly more inclined toward domestic
production.
Davide: “When we talk of quality, especially for the food sector, Italy is superior
compared to most of the other countries.”
38
Maja: “The reason for that is that our companies will transform the product in a
certain way compared to foreign producers, that we link to a superior quality.”
Chiara: “In other words Italy has a certain tradition of making coffee, which I don’t
think foreign companies have, so I would rather not buy foreign brands.”
Alessandro explained the source of such positive opinions regarding coffee roasted in Italy.
The general idea is that Italy has a coffee culture which the majority of other countries
doesn’t. Coffee transformed by Italian producers, as a qualitative product could be part of the
so called Made in Italy products. What coffee has in common with fashion or furniture
sectors, he said, is a long tradition and producing methods that were refined in the last
centuries and surpassed others’, which is still visible today. The improved production
techniques resulted in an excellent taste and unique preparation.
As explained in Chapter 1.3, objective reasoning is not always the only factor involved when
evaluating the COO of a certain product. The so called normative and affective mechanisms
can also play a role in the formation of specific COO effects. Among the hypothesis
formulated in this empirical part, patriotism and consumer ethnocentrism are the selected
construct that could justify negative COO effect involving foreign coffee producers. Thus
participants were asked if their opinions were conditioned by feelings of attachment or duty
toward their country. The majority of participants of the focus group is sure to not bear such
feelings while purchasing coffee.
Alessia: “Sometimes I buy foreign brands, but when I do, I never consider feelings
such as patriotism.”
Maja: “I don’t buy Italian brands thinking about my identity and Italian economy, but
I make my choices based on my personal preferences.”
Alessandro: “I don’t think directly about it neither, but in the end with my purchases I
sustain Italian economy anyway, as I buy only Italian coffee brands.”
Annette: “More than supporting the economy, I gladly support companies for their
ideals or corporate social responsibility programs. So by buying those products, I
perceive it like both me and the company can get the maximum gain out of it and
help someone.”
Among the participants, only one, Chiara, admitted to have patriotic feelings:
“I would define myself a bit patriotic, especially when food is concerned. When I go
shopping I prefer to conform to the products or brands that I know. But on the other
hand I consider myself pretty open too. When abroad I like to try local products and
local food, that’s valid also for coffee. […] Yes, buying Italian products satisfies me
also because I support Italian economy in this way. However even though I believe
Italy is excellent in the food sector, for certain products I choose foreign production,
39
for example for olives I prefer buying Greek olives that for me taste the best.”
Rather than hostility toward foreign products or overestimation of its own country, what
drives the opinion of the participants is also their experience with coffee abroad. When
buying coffee in Italian supermarkets, the participants expect that both Italian and foreign
producers pay attention to quality and that their coffee would be prepared only with the Italian
preparing method. Davide continued by saying that if he decided to buy coffee brands from
foreign roasters in Italy, it would be because he believes they use the same Italian techniques
to prepare it, otherwise Italians would perceive the difference and stop buying it. Foreign
companies are expected to adapt to consumers’ needs. Maja added that if a foreign coffee
roaster in the Italian market would advertise that it produces coffee according to, for example,
French tradition, she would never consider buying it. When abroad, those standards are
lowered mostly due to negative personal experience with foreign coffee.
Alessia: “Abroad I search for places that serve Italian coffee, I tried local coffee and
it’s really not comparable. The coffee is more watery. Foreign production doesn’t
seem to be qualitative enough, but with Italian coffee I’m sure to drink good coffee.”
Lea: “If you go to an Italian bar you know that they serve it in a certain way, with the
bars abroad it is unknown. Going abroad I’m not enthusiast at the idea of drinking
coffee that’s not Italian.”
Maja on that added that to an inexpert eye in some places it could seem that they imitate
Italian style of preparing coffee, but they lack the techniques and devotion to coffee
preparation. For example, she was shocked that in certain bars abroad they use a dirty rag to
clean the filter when coffee powder is overflowing. That was a clear sign, she confirmed, that
foreigners are not able to make good coffee. Although the participants would rather drink
Italian coffee also abroad, if they cannot find a place serving Italian coffee they still “can’t
give up to the pleasure of drinking coffee”.
Annette: “If I know where to find Italian coffee I go there. Most of the times it
happened that I found it by coincidence. Otherwise if I cannot find it, I enter in a bar
that looks nice.”
Davide: “If I don’t find a place that serves Italian coffee, I resist and drink the coffee
that I find. If I perceive it will not be good, I mix it with milk and sugar.”
Given their favoritism toward domestic products, I questioned the necessity of having foreign
brands on Italian market at all. Although the participants prefer buying Italian brands, they
consider foreign companies an advantage for the Italian market. They positively concluded
that following Nespresso example in the future other foreign companies could bring
challenges and innovation to the market or higher satisfaction to consumers that search for
convenience and detachment from the traditional ways.
Chiara: “We are part of a global community, nowadays we have products coming
from all over the world. It’s true that those big companies could be a threat for
40
smaller Italian companies, but having imported products enriches our markets and
gives us a wider selection of products. As a consumer I don’t want to be limited in
my choices, I want to have many options, including foreign ones, and then it would
be me to judge which is the best product for me.”
Annette: “However changes can stimulate people to change. Changes are not always
radical, but they can bring people to try and accept diversity and novelties. That’s
why I’m not opposed to competitors entry in the market. I’m sure that our market
would not be damaged by it, because our coffee culture and tradition are too
embedded and superior to suddenly be substituted by the competition.”
3.1.2 Summary of focus group findings
My qualitative study provided some interesting insights. What drives consumers’ choice of
coffee the most is the taste of coffee. A better taste is synonym of a higher quality of the
product which can be conditioned by many elements, from brand to packaging to COO.
During the discussion COO was attributed three different definitions, confirming the
complexity of the term described in Chapter 1.2, but just two where relevant for the
participants when choosing coffee. For the coffee product, the COO can be divided in the
country of origin of the coffee beans, the country of manufacturing (COM) the beans in
roasted coffee or the country of the brand (COB) selling the roasted coffee. The first
definition of COO as the country where the coffee beans originate from, was not considered
relevant for the participants, because it is not determinant when evaluating the quality of the
coffee. The origin of the coffee beans which could help to diversify the coffee varieties,
namingly Arabica or Robusta varieties, is usually unknown, because the coffee beans used by
the companies cannot be linked to a single origin.
The participants however, as said in Chapter 2.1.4, reacted to COO differently when it was
considered as COM and COB. A clear distinction was made between foreign and domestic
roasted coffee and COO had an influence in the consumers’ choice of coffee products. The
participants were unanimously oriented toward Italian products when selecting coffee in the
domestic market as well as when going abroad. The reason was their belief that Italian coffee
brands or Italian production techniques are superior in quality to other foreign companies due
to the overall Italian excellent craftsmanship and long tradition in production Italian
companies have in the coffee market. Further, stereotypes or personal experience abroad with
foreign brands contributed as well to reach such conclusion.
Affective or normative reasons didn’t seem to be additional causes for participants’
preference for domestic products. The participants don’t reject other coffee products
unconditionally because they are sure that coffee sold in Italy is produced according to Italian
production methods: therefore some participants try a variety of both domestic and foreign
products, choosing at the end the one that brings them the higher satisfaction. They are also
open to the entry of foreign products into the market as such move could boost competitivity
of Italian firms as well and give the consumers a higher variety of options. More patriotic or
41
ethnocentric feelings were registered only in one participant. A higher tolerance and
acceptance of imported products could be explained by the age of the participants. In line with
Chryssochidis’s findings (2007, p. 1538), younger consumers don’t present such patriotic or
ethnocentric tendencies as they are “more acquainted with foreign countries and more
receptive to the products they produce”. The age proximity is a limitation in the verification
of the validity of the constructs. A more balanced sample of participants would probably
reveal more trustworthly the importance of those mechanisms in the moment of choice. These
considerations were included in the quantitative study.
3.2 Survey among coffee consumers
Based on the literature review of Chapters 1 and 2 and the findings of the exploratory
qualitative study, my empirical research proceeded with the quantitative study on coffee
purchasing in Italy. The objectives of the quantitative research is to ascertain if, in the
moment of coffee purchase, certain mechanisms connected to COO condition the choice of
consumers, as has been proven by other researchers. First, research hypotheses were designed
and graphically depicted in a conceptual model (see Figure 8). The conceptual model was
evaluated using survey data obtained via an online questionnaire, and analyzed by using SPSS
software.
3.2.1 Research hypotheses and conceptual model
The main outcome variable in my conceptual model is the purchasing behaviour in favour of
domestic coffee rather than foreign coffee. The choice is based on the literature review and
the findings of the qualitative study, which suggested that Italian consumers prefer domestic
products when talking about coffee. Furthermore according to recent results of a research
made by the Ministry of agricultural, food and forestry policies (2015) the majority of Italians
(82%) are willing to spend more on domestic grocery products rather than foreign ones. My
quantitative study therefore proposes to explore the reasons for the presumed favourable
perception of domestic products in the Italian coffee market.
Over the years many authors have shown COO’s connection to consumers’ purchasing
process analyzing different constructs. All the elements that participate in the formation of the
COO effect can be attributed to three big mechanisms: cognitive, affective or normative
perspectives. Those mechanisms are operating interdependently in the moment of choice.
However some researchers claim that studies that would connect all those three
interdependent mechanisms in one single model are still scarce and are therefore needed (e.g.,
Vida & Reardon, 2008). My conceptual model, depicted in Figure 8, is based on this thought
and was adapted from Vida & Reardon (2008) and Ahmed et al. (2010) models.
42
Figure 8. Conceptual model of domestic purchase behaviour
Quality was taken as the variable representing cognitive mechanism, patriotism is
representing affective mechanism and ethnocentrism stands for normative mechanism.
The findings of the qualitative research revealed how quality leads every consideration of
Italians’ purchases, especially when talking about coffee. The participants in the focus group
were oriented toward domestic coffee products because those were considered of higher
quality than foreign coffee products. Similarly in the Ahmed et al. (2004) research
Singaporean consumers confirmed how COO and its connected perceived quality can
condition the choice toward domestic bread and coffee products. Therefore my first
hypothesis states:
H1: The perception of superior quality of Italian coffee products compared to foreign
products positively affects purchasing behaviour toward domestic coffee products.
Literature suggests that consumers can perceive the quality of a product directly through the
product’s COO image (Auruskeviciene et al., 2012). Ahmed et al. (2004) findings suggest
that quality perception varies across product categories and it will be higher when there is a fit
between the product category and the COO image. This finding was confirmed also by
Hamzaoui and Merunka (2006) who added that certain countries stand out more than others in
certain product categories because in the eyes of the consumers their manufacturing
competences have a significant effect on perceived quality. In the case of Italy, the COO or
the “Made in Italy” is in consumers’ minds a label that is usually a guarantee of excellent
craftsmanship and therefore superior quality for many products. As verified in the qualitative
43
research, consumers place coffee production among other Made in Italy products due to the
continuous pursuit, by Italian roasters, of high quality through all production phases (Nora,
2013). Therefore Made in Italy designation influences the quality perception of Italian coffee
products.
H2: A high perception of the “Made in Italy” image positively affects the perception of
quality of domestic coffee.
The consumers’ preferences for domestic products, can be explained also by the consumers’
feelings and opinion regarding foreign products and nations. In the large spectrum of
emotions, the preferences toward domestic coffee products, could be explained by feelings of
admiration toward one’s own country (Rybina et al., 2010). Even though the participants to
the focus group didn’t really openly displayed patriotic feelings, Italian consumers are said to
be proud of domestic, Made in Italy products. This is especially true for those connected to
the food, coffee and wine sector (A guide to Italian coffee, 2015). Sometimes consumers
display a behaviour more inclined toward subjective rather than objective utility. As
discovered by Vida & Reardon (2008), in domestic purchases patriotism can be a stronger
driver than perception of quality.
H3: Feelings of patriotism positively influence Italian consumer purchasing behaviour
toward domestic coffee products.
Patriotic sentiments are also included in another broad concept – consumer ethnocentrism
(Razvetani et al., 2012). When consumers consider it immoral or unpatriotic to purchase
foreign products due to the impact it has on the domestic economy he or she can be
considered an ethnocentric consumer (Ahmed et al., 2004). Again in my qualitative research
consumer ethnocentrism was not revealed as significant for participants’ coffee purchases.
This is probably due to the fact that the participants were younger consumers and more
openminded (Chryssocidis, 2007). Generally Italian consumers display ethnocentric
behaviour. When it comes to domestic products, Auruskeviciene et al. (2012) and Baladinis
and Diamantopolous (2004) found out how consumer ethnocentrism can better explain
domestic purchase behaviour than foreign one. Regardless the products’ quality, for
ethnocentric consumers the COO consideration and negative effects toward foreign products
are activated and the consumers purchase the domestic products to support the domestic
economy.
H4: Consumer ethnocentrism positively influences Italian consumer purchasing
behaviour toward domestic coffee products.
Ahmed et al. (2010) suggest that explanatory factors like demographics, jointly work to
explain consumers’ COO perceptions. To give a better overall picture of the sample and of the
influence of each mechanism on domestic purchase behaviour, they were included in the
model. As gender is concerned Samiee et al., (2005) have reported that female consumers
shows higher preference for domestic products. In the same study opposition to foreign
44
products has been shown to diminish with the increase in education, income and travel
experiences. Watson and Wright (2000) confirmed also how older consumer are more
influenced by COO and its variables than younger consumers. Based on these findings, I
hypothesized that age, gender, income, education and traveling experiences are significant
predictors of the three mechanisms that influence positively purchases of domestic products.
H5: Demographic characteristics of Italian consumers are significant predictors of
superior quality perception of Italian coffee.
H5a: There is a positive correlation between females and the superior quality perception
of Italian coffee.
H5b: Age is a significant predictor of the superior quality perception of Italian coffee.
H5c: Income is a significant predictor of the superior quality perception of Italian coffee.
H5d: Education is a significant predictor of the superior quality perception of Italian
coffee.
H5e: Traveling experiences are significant predictors of the superior quality perception of
Italian coffee.
patriotic feelings.
H6a: There is a positive correlation between females and patriotic feelings.
H6b: Age is a significant predictor of patriotic feelings.
H6c: Income is a significant predictor of patriotic feelings.
H6d: Education is a significant predictor of patriotic feelings.
H6e: Traveling experiences is significant predictors of patriotic feelings.
consumer ethnocentrism.
H7a: There is a positive correlation between females and consumer ethnocentrism.
H7b: Age is a significant predictor of consumer ethnocentrism.
H7c: Income is a significant predictor of consumer ethnocentrism.
H7d: Education is a significant predictor of consumer ethnocentrism.
H7e: Traveling experiences are significant predictors of consumer ethnocentrism.
3.2.2 Quantitative research methodology
In the quantitative empirical study, the data were gathered via questionnaire. This technique
of data collection is frequently used since it provides an efficient way of collecting responses
from a large sample (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). The questionnaire was constructed
based on the reviewed literature and the prior qualitative study. It includes 18 questions
summarized in Appendix B.
The questionnaire is divided in three parts. A screening question is opening the questionnaire
in a way to ascertain that the respondents are coffee drinkers and therefore are able to give
consistent answers in line with my assumption that they are familiar with coffee products. In
45
the first group of questions general information about consumer habits concerning coffee
drinking were collected. To get a complete picture on the sample’s coffee drinking habits, the
general basic 4W (what, where, when, why) questions are developed in the form of multiple
choice questions (Spencers-Thomas, 2012). Next come two questions that refer to coffee
brands, where the respondents express their coffee preference among a list of coffee brands
present in the market and they are asked to associate to each brand a COO from the list. This
question is used to ascertain the ability of the sample to recognize the COO of specific coffee
brands.
The central part of the questionnaire, examines the five main constructs in my research:
purchasing behaviour of domestic coffee products, COO image – Made in Italy, superior
quality perception, patriotism and consumer ethnocentrism. Five-point Likert scale, where the
respondents were asked to evaluate the statements on a scale ranging from 1 = “strongly
agree” and 5 = “strongly disagree”, was used for all questions in this section in order to infer
the level of influence of each of the factors taken in consideration during the buying decision.
The items used for each construct are summarized in Table 4.
Purchasing behaviour of domestic coffee products was measured by three items adapted from
Granzin & Olsen (1998). The COO image (Made in Italy) of products, was measured by 8
items adapted from Jin et al. (2006). The superior quality perception was measured with four
items, which were specifically adapted for the coffee products based on researches by
Parameswaran & Pashiarodi (1994), Klein et al. (1998) and my qualitative study.
Table 4. Operationalization of studied constructs
ITEM
Adapted from/Based on
Purchasing behaviour of domestic coffee products
Mostly I try to buy coffee brands of domestic companies.
Granzin & Olsen (1998)
I take time to look at labels in order to knowlingly buy more
coffee brands of domestic companies.
I shop first at retail outlets that make special effort to offer a
variety of domestic coffee products.
COO image - Made in Italy production
Reasonably priced – Unreasonably priced
Jin et al. (2006)
Good workmanship – poor workmanship
Jin et al. (2006)
Exclusive – common
Jin et al. (2006)
Technically advanced – technically backward
Jin et al. (2006)
Reliable – unreliable
Jin et al. (2006)
Innovative – Imitative
Jin et al. (2006)
High quality – low quality
Jin et al. (2006)
Handmade – Mass produced
Jin et al. (2006)
Superior quality perception
Relatively to foreign coffee, Italian cofee…
46
… is of superior taste.
…is roasted by skilled roasters.
…has a higher price/quality value.
…has a long tradition and prestige.
Parameswaran & Pashiarodi (1994)
Parameswaran & Pashiarodi (1994)
Klein et al. (1998)
Qualitative research
Patriotism
Being an Italian citizen means a lot to me.
I’m proud to be an Italian citizen.
Italy possesses certain cultural attributes that other cultures do
not.
When a foreign person praises Italy, it feels like a personal
compliment.
Consumer Ethnocentrism
I’m proud that our products have such great prestige abroad.
Made in Italy is what drives Italian economy.
Only the products unavailable in Italy should be imported.
It may cost me in the long run but I prefer to support Italian
products.
We should buy products manufactured in Italy instead of
letting other countries get rich off us.
Italians should not buy foreign products, because this hurts
Italian business and causes unemployment.
Keillor et al. (1996)
Vida & Reardon (2008)
Shimp & Sharma (1987)
Patriotism was measured with four items, which were adapted for coffee products from
Keillor et al. (1996) and Vida & Reardon (2008). The last construct, consumer ethnocentrism,
which is originally measured by CETSCALE developed by Shrimp and Sharma (1987)
consisting of 17 items, was reduced to 7 items, modified for the Italian context. The shortened
version was widely used and confirmed to be still a valid scale by many researchers (Vida &
Reardon, 2008; Auruskeviciene et al., 2012; Rybina et al., 2010).
The last part of the questionnaire refers to socio-demographic background of the sample.
These data gave general information about the sample and helped to identify any disparity in
coffee choices among different age range groups, between males and females, based on the
income level, graduation title and experience abroad.
3.2.3 Questionnaire design and data collection
Prior to data collection, the questionnaire was meticulously translated and adapted into Italian
language. Questionnaire was tested on a set of 10 volunteers. This exercise allowed to check
whether all the items were correctly interpreted and understood. The comments of the
respondents were taken in consideration and the necessary adjustments were made. The
survey was also tested for average response time to assure the survey completion would not
take more than 15 minutes. The average completion time for the 10 testers was 12 minutes
and 8 seconds, which was considered acceptable.
47
The questionnaire was distributed online. This form is preferred to paper survey due to its
ability to reach a higher share of the population and its environmental friendly consideration.
The questionnaire was created with EnKlikAnketa, or shorter 1ka (www.1ka.si), survey
design software. The technique used for the distribution was a non-probability sample
technique called snowball or network sampling (Goodman, 1961). The questionnaire was sent
to a number of relatives, friends and colleagues that were asked to fill in the questionnaire and
to forward it to their friends and family. The questionnaire was also posted on several
Internet forums in order to get a more heterogeneous sample of respondents.
3.2.4 Survey’s results
As said in the previous chapter the data were collected through a questionnaire distributed
through the Internet. During the period of data collection, between January 20th to February
5th 2016, a total of 205 questionnaires were retrieved. However among them 59 questionnaire
were excluded from the analysis due to excessive missing values. The final sample used for in
the analysis presented a total of 141 responses having the status “completed”.
In the next chapters the results of my qualitative research are presented. First of all sample’s
characteristics are described through respondents’ demographics and coffee habits to give a
macro level picture of the sample taken in consideration. Then the focus moves onto the
retrieved data: before the start of the analysis the reliability of the data were ascertained. The
dimensionality of the constructs is examined by conducting exploratory factor analysis.
Diminishing the variables into few factors allows the analysis to continue toward hypothesis
testing, which is the last step of my research.
3.2.4.1 Sample characteristics
The demographic characteristics of the survey respondents are summarized in Table 5. In the
sample, there were more female (63%) than male (37%) respondents. The highest represented
age group in the sample were the respondetns between age 26 and 35, which is lower than the
average of the whole Italian population of 44.4 years (Istat, 2014). The large difference can be
attributed to two factors: respondents younger than 18 years old were not considered in the
analysis as verified to not be an age group that usually drinks coffee, while just a few answers
were collected from older people, which could be attributed to their lesser Internet usage.
With respect to average mounthly household income, the most represented group (42% of all
respondents) was in 1,000 € - 1,900€ brackett, which, again, is lower than the country’s
average of 2,500 € (Istat, 2014). Hence, the sample exhibited below average purchasing
power.
The education background of respondents encompasses all the levels of education (middle
school degree, high school degree, bachelor degree, Master’s degree and PhD degree), with
the majority of respondents completing the Master studies. This is above average as compared
to the education of the Italian population, among which only the 58.2% of people of age
48
between 25 and 64 have achieved the high school degree and just the 8% of them completed
Master degree (Istat, 2014).
Age groups (years)
Gender
Table 5. Demographic characteristics of respondents
Female
63%
Male
37%
19 – 25
26%
26 –35
42%
36 – 45
10%
46 – 59
60+
17%
4%
Monthly household
1,000 – 1,999
2,000 – 2,999
28%
3,000 – 3,999
18%
4,000 – 4,999
4%
5,000 – 5,999
4%
6,000+
4%
Middle school
Education
41%
2%
High school
26%
University (Bachelor degree)
19%
University (Master degree)
46%
PhD
7%
Traveling
Sometimes
43%
1 per year
20%
2 per year
19%
3 per year
2%
More than 3 per year
16%
Finally, travel experience indicates that the highest percentage of the sample travels abroad at
least once per year. This is in accordance with the average for Italian population (Istat, 2014).
The questionnaire started with a screening question. Among 205 respondents, 35 of them
(17%), were not coffee drinkers, while the remaining 170 respondents (83%) confirmed to
drink coffee and hence qualified to continue with the questionnaire. This is a first
confirmation that the majority of Italian consumers drink coffee although the share of noncoffee drinkers in the sample is higher than the average 10% estimated by Osservatorio
49
Internazionale Food & Beverage and Equipment (Osservatorio internazionale, n.d.).
According to the Italian drinking habits summarized in Chapter 2, my research sample
confirmed the preferences of the population. The drinking habits are shown in Table 6.
When?
Where?
How
many?
Table 6. Coffee drinking habits of respondents
1
5%
2
34%
More than 3
28%
At home
61%
At the bar
21%
Other (restaurants, distributors)
17%
For breakfast
72%
After the meals
In the afternoon
22%
6%
Why?
To wake up
21%
For its flavour and taste
Out of habit
46%
9%
As a moment to relax
24%
The coffee is consumed most often at home (61%) and in morning hours (72%). The
respondents drink coffee first of all because they appreciate its flavour and taste (46%), but
also because drinking it is a chance to relax alone or with friends (24%) or because it keeps
them awake during the day (21%). With 200,000 bars opened all around Italy, Italian
consumers are large consumers of coffee also outside of home. Choosing the bar where to
consume it, is based on average the most on the atmosphere of the place (3.8 on a scale from
1 to 5), followed by the coffee brand served (3.6 on a scale from 1 to 5). Considering coffee
brands, the one with the biggest market share in the Italian market, Lavazza, was confirmed to
be the first choice of the majority of the respondents (39%).
The only data that differs from previous researches concerns the quantity of cups consumed in
a day. The respondents drink mostly 2 cups of coffee per day (34%), while in other researches
it was found that Italians drink 3 cups per day (Italians: The 7 stereotypes of coffee drinkers,
2015). The participants are not just regular drinkers, they have also an extensive knowledge
on coffee market. When presented with a list of domestic and foreign coffee brands, the
majority of the participants were able to recognize the origin of all of them. The results are
shown in Figure 9.
50
Figure 9. Coffee’s COO recognition
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Julius
Nespre
Hausbr
Segafre Starbuc
Meinl
Illy
Kimbo Lavazza sso
(Other andt
do
ks
(Italy)
(Italy) (Italy) (Switze
(Italy)
(Italy) (USA)
Austria
rland)
)
Excelsi
or
(Italy)
Hag
(USA)
Other
23%
11%
4%
3%
25%
12%
1%
6%
11%
7%
USA
7%
5%
1%
0%
3%
7%
0%
30%
2%
89%
Switzerland
9%
7%
2%
0%
12%
3%
1%
20%
1%
0%
France
11%
5%
0%
0%
17%
8%
1%
9%
1%
0%
Germany
7%
41%
39%
0%
28%
5%
1%
1%
0%
2%
Italy
44%
31%
54%
97%
15%
65%
96%
34%
85%
2%
As confirmed in the qualitative research, quality is an essential cue on which the consumers
base their choices of coffee for domestic consumption. On a scale from 1, absolutely not
important, to 5, absolutely important, quality, with the average of 4.5, was valued more
important than cues like price (3.7) or brand name (3.65). COO cue followed those three
factors with an average of 2.9, which indicated it as a less important cue for consumers.
3.2.4.2 Reliability of measurement scales
Prior to hypotheses testing a reliability test for domestic purchasing behaviour, COO image,
superior perceived quality, patriotism and consumer ethnocentrism were conducted and the
multiple items describing each single construct were reduced to fewer factors. The items
defining the five constructs originate from measurement scales used frequently by previous
research (see Table 4). Due to the fact that in those studies the reliability and validity of those
measurement scales were already confirmed, I expected the same results also in my research.
In this research, validity was assessed with factor analysis. The Principal Component
Analysis (PCA) extraction method was used to identify any invalid case or data value and
reduce the operationable items to just few significant components. KMO measure of sample
adequacy was used to verify if the PCA method was adequate for the collected sample data.
51
For all the constructs the KMO measures are above 0.8, a high value that allowed me to
proceed with the analysis. To determine the number of components needed for my data, I
looked at the scatter plot and the statistics. Higher percentage of explained variance of the
extracted components and the factor loadings close to 1, imply a higher explnatory power of
the extracted components. The factor loadings for the constructs and the corresponding
Cronbach alphas are presented in Tables 7.
Table 7. Factor loadings and reliability for the constructs
Construct
(factor)
Purchasing
behaviour of
domestic coffee
products
Superior quality
perception
COO image
Patriotism
Factor
loading
Item
Mostly I try to buy coffee brands of
domestic roasters. (1)
Whenever possible I take time to look at
labels in order to knowlingly buy more
coffee brands of domestic companies.
(2)
I shop first at retail outlests that make
special effort to offer coffee brands of
domestic production. (3)
Components’
explained
variance
Cronbach’s
alpha
74.3%
0.826
0.807
0.917
0.860
Relatively to foreign coffee products, Italian coffee..
… has a superior aroma. (1)
0.785
…is roasted by skilled roasters. (2)
0.767
62.1%
… has a higher price/quality value. (3)
0.803
… has a long tradition and prestige. (4)
0.795
Unreasonably priced – reasonably
/
priced (1)
Technically backward – Technically
0.777
66.9%
advanced (2)
Unreliable – Reliable (3)
0.879
Imitative – Innovative (4)
0.752
Low quality – High quality (5)
0.825
Mass produced – Handmade (6)
/
Being an Italian citizen means a lot to
0.901
me. (1)
I am proud to be an Italian citizen. (2)
0.895
Italy possess certain cultural attributes
65.8%
that other cultures do not. (3)
0.598
When a foreign person praises Italy, it
feels like a personal compliment. (4)
0.814
52
0.793
0.834
0.817
Consumer
ethnocentrism
I’m proud that our products have such
great prestige abroad. (1)
Made in Italy is what drives Italian
economy. (2)
Only the products unavailable in Italy
should be imported. (3)
It may cost me in the long run but I
prefer to support Italian products. (4)
We should buy products manufactured
in Italy instead of letting other countries
get rich off us. (5)
Italians should not buy foreign products,
because this hurts Italian business and
causes unemployment. (6)
/
/
0.674
0.794
65.6%
0.82
0.872
0.744
For purchasing behaviour of domestic coffee products, superior quality perception and
patriotism one component was enough to represent fairly well all items of the same construct:
all the factor loadings presented high values close to 1, the Eigen values were superior to 1
and the explained variances were higher than 60%, which therefore suggested that all the
items used were valid and one component sufficient. On the other hand, for COO image and
consumer ethnocentrism two components would be needed to explain well the two constructs.
For consumer ethnocentrism the initial explained variance was 47.2%. The first and second
item presented non significant factor loadings values, below 0.5. However by adding a second
component the explained variance as well as factor loading values of the items increased. The
first two items are questioning consumers’ national identity, while the other four items are
directly connected to consumers’ purchasing patterns. Although consumer ethnocentrism can
be connected to more meanings, only the four items are consistent with my model and
objective of my research. When the first two items were excluded from the analysis, the total
explained variance increased to 65.6%. Similarly, for COO image the initial explained
variance was 49.4% and not all the factor loadings presented high values. However even by
adding a second component the internal and total variances were not explained well enough.
The first and last COO image’s items, “Unreasonably priced – Reasonably priced” and “Mass
produced – Handmade”, presents low internal variances when extracting one component or
two components. The reason for that could be that these items do not make consumers
distinguish Italian COO image from other countries’ images. The items were removed from
the model which allowed higher overall validity with the extracted variance rising to 66.9%.
Following the validity test, in order to assess the factors’ reliability, Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficient was calculated for each construct (Saunders et al., 2009). The
coefficient’s value ranges between 0 and 1, where 0 indicates an unreliable construct, while 1
a perfectly reliable construct. Table 7 shows that Cronbach’s alpha for all the constructs are
above 0.75 suggesting high internal consistency of the scale and good value of the
coefficients.
53
3.2.4.3 Hypotheses testing
In this section the results of my hypotheses are presented. I employed three different
statistical test and procedures, i.e. simple and multiple linear regression, analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and independent samples t-test.
Three of my hypothesis, H1, H3 and H4 were tested with a multiple linear regression
analysis. Superior quality perception, patriotism and ethnocentrism were computed as
independent variables, while domestic purchasing behaviour of coffee as the dependent
variable. The results are enclosed in the Appendix C. To test the model overall fit I looked at
the adjusted coefficient of determination, ANOVA table and scatter plot. The adjusted
determination coefficient is equal to 0.474 which means that only 47.4% of the variability of
the domestic purchasing behaviour is explained by the three selected independent variables.
ANOVA tests if at least one independent variable is linearly related to the dependent variable.
The significance of the F-test is p = 0.00 which indicates that I can reject the null hypothesis
that my model has no explanatory power. When the model is being assessed we should check
also the supposed normal distribution graphically with the help of the histogram and the
variability with the scatterplot (Appendix D). In the scatter plot no pattern is seen so it cannot
be claimed that homoscedasticity is not present.
Another important tool to use when assessing the model is the multicollinearity test. Usually
collinearity of the independent variables is not wanted as a result and should be therefore
resolved when encountered. In the regression analysis the diagnostics for detecting the
presence of colinearity are VIF and Tolerance. In the model the independent variables have
values of VIF below 4, which indicates a good model, while the tolerances are relatively high
for some variables, with values that goes from 0.6 to 0.8. Both results indicate that on overall
the multicolinearity problem is not serious in my model.
After assessing the model overall significance, I checked the relation of each single
independent variable to the dependent variable. In Table 8, the significance and b values for
all three constructs are presented.
Table 8. Regression analysis results for Domestic Purchases
Variables
Superior quality perception
Patriotism
Consumer ethnocentrism
Unstandardized Regression
Coefficient (two tailed p-value)
0.662
(0.00)
0.011
(0.85)
0.209
(0.01)
54
The superior quality perception variable (b = 0.622, p=0.00) is found to have a significant
effect on domestic purchasing behaviour. The sign is positive indicating a positive correlation
between the variables, i.e. that as superior quality perception of domestic products increases,
so will also increase the domestic coffee purchases. Therefore survey results support
Hypothesis 1.
According to Table 8 patriotism (b = 0.011, p = 0.85) doesn’t have a significant effect on
domestic purchasing behaviour of coffee. Therefore I found no support for Hypothesis 3.
On the other hand consumer ethnocentrism (b = 0.209, p = 0.01) has a significant effect on
coffee domestic purchasing behaviour. The sign is positive indicating a positive correlation
between the variables, i.e. that as consumer ethnocentrism increases, so will also increase the
domestic coffee purchases. The Hypothesis 4 is thus supported.
H2: A high perception of the Made in Italy image positively affects the perception of
quality of domestic coffee.
Simple linear regression was used to check the relation between COO image of Italian
products and superior quality perception of domestic coffee products. When considering
simple linear regression the coefficient of correlation, R, is checked. In this case R is equal to
+0.359 showing that the correlation between the dependent variable, i.e. the superior quality
perception of Italian coffee, and the independent variable, i.e. the COO image of Italian
products, is linear and positive, but weak. I looked at ANOVA F-test to better define the
independent variable. The F-test for the model is significant (F = 20.59, p = 0.00), meaning
that I can reject the null hypothesis that my model has no explanatory power. The COO image
of Italian products (b = 0.302, p = 0.00) results as a significant predictor of the superior
quality perception of Italian products. Therefore I can conclude that Hypothesis 2 is
supported. Detailed results of the simple linear regression analysis can be found in the
APPENDIX E.
The weak coefficient of correlation in multiple regression for H1, H3 and H4 suggests that
there are other variables influencing the three constructs of Italian coffee. In my conceptual
model I included some demographic variables that were confirmed in literature to influence
those constructs. Independent sample t-test was performed for gender variable, while the other
variables were analyzed through ANOVA test. Due to the low number of respondents in some
55
of the groups, when appropriate, some groups were merged to obtain a balanced-size sample.
superior quality perception of Italian coffee.
of Italian coffee.
H5b: Age is a significant predictor of the superior quality perception of Italian coffee.
H5c: Income is a significant predictor of the superior quality perception of Italian coffee.
H5d: Education is a significant predictor of the superior quality perception of Italian
coffee.
H5e: Traveling experiences are significant predictors of the superior quality perception of
Italian coffee.
The hypothesis H5 tries to identify a relation between superior quality perception of Italian
coffee, the dependent variable, and consumers’ demographic characteristics, the independent
variables. Based on the results, all the individual demographic variables were not found to be
significant predictors of superior quality perception of Italian coffee. Therefore H5 is overall
not supported. The findings are summarized in Table 9 and in more details in the Appendix F.
Table 9. Results of t-test for Hypothesis 5a and ANOVA for Hypothesis 5b, 5c, 5d and 5e
Predictor
Gender
Age
Income
Education
Traveling experience
T-value/F-value
-0.87
0.64
2.24
1.65
1.09
Significance (two tailed p-value)
(0.38)
(0.52)
(0.10)
(0.18)
(0.34)
patriotic feelings.
H6b: Age is a significant predictor of patriotic feelings.
H6c: Income is a significant predictor of patriotic feelings.
H6d: Education is a significant predictor of patriotic feelings.
H6e: Traveling experiences is significant predictors of patriotic feelings.
The hypothesis H6 tries to identify a relation between patriotism, the dependent variable, and
consumers’ demographic characteristics, the independent variables. Based on the results, all
the individual demographic variables were not found to be significant predictors of patriotism.
Therefore H6 is overall not supported. The findings are presented in Table 10 and in more
details in the Appendix G.
56
Predictor
Gender
Age
Income
Education
T-value/F-value
-0.31
1.35
1.15
0.62
0.19
(0.76)
(0.25)
(0.3)
(0.53)
(0.89)
consumer ethnocentrism.
H7a: There is a positive correlation between females and consumer ethnocentrism.
H7b: Age is a significant predictor of consumer ethnocentrism.
H7c: Income is a significant predictor of consumer ethnocentrism.
H7d: Education is a significant predictor of consumer ethnocentrism.
H7e: Traveling experiences are significant predictors of consumer ethnocentrism.
My last hypothesis tries to identify a relation between consumer ethnocentrism, the dependent
variable, and consumers’ demographic characteristics, the independent variables. Based on
the results of all the individual demographic variables, gender, age and income were not
found to be significant predictors of consumer ethnocentrism. However, ANOVA tests for
education (F = 3.24, p = 0.04) and traveling experience (F = 4.31, p = 0.005) showed that the
level of consumer ethnocentrism was significantly different for these two variables. Thus, H7
can be partially supported. The findings are presented in Table 11 and in more details in the
Appendix H.
Predictor
Gender
Age
Income
Education
T-value/F-value
-0.42
3.42
0.62
3.24
4.31
(0.68)
(0.07)
(0.68)
(0.04)
(0.01)
3.2.5 Summary of quantitative research findings
In my research two out of three mechnanisms, the cognitive and normative mechanism, were
revealed to be strong indicators of domestic purchases in Italian coffee market.
Quality perception relevance was confirmed throughout my entire research: participants in the
focus group unanimously agreed that quality is the main factor on which they base their
product evaluation; in the survey, when asked to evaluate the importance of different cues in
coffee purchases, the respondents indicated not only that quality was the most relevant among
57
them, but also that it had on average really high importance. This supported my first
Hypothesis H1, based on Ahmed et al. (2004) research conclusion that perceived quality
favourably conditions the choice of domestic products. Overall, respondents confirmed the
existence of a difference in the perception between domestic and foreign coffee quality.
Table 12. Hypotheses testing results
Hypothesis
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
Content of hypothesis
The perception of superior quality of Italian coffee products
compared to foreign products positively affects purchasing
A high perception of the Made in Italy image positively affects
the perception of quality of domestic coffee.
Feelings of patriotism positively influence Italian consumer
purchasing behaviour toward domestic coffee products.
Consumer ethnocentrism positively influences Italian consumer
purchasing behaviour toward domestic coffee products
Demographic characteristics of Italian consumers are significant
predictors of superior quality perception of Italian coffee.
predictors of patriotic feelings.
predictors of consumer ethnocentrism.
Result
Supported
Supported
Not
supported
Supported
Not
supported
Not
supported
Partially
supported
In line with the relevant literature the image consumers attribute to a certain country was
proved to influence their quality perception (Chryssochidis, 2007; Ahmed et al., 2010). As my
Hypothesis H2 suggested, Italian coffee is throught to be of superior quality compared with
foreign coffee. This is ascribable mainly to the image of excellence of Italian roasters and of
the long tradition of Italian coffee. However, although the relation was confirmed to exist, the
correlation between the two elements was revealed to be weak and that therefore there are
other elements that participate to the creation of superior quality perception.
The affective mechanisms, identified with patriotism, didn’t show any relevant influence on
domestic coffee purchases in the quantitative as well as in the qualitative study.
Consequently, my hypothesis H3, based on Vida & Reardon’s (2008) finding that patriotism
can explain domestic purchases, was not supported for the Italian coffee market. The
normative construct, identified with the consumer ethnocentrism, on the other hand, was the
second construct considered significant for domestic purchases. Therefore hypothesis H4,
developed on Auruskeviciene et al. (2012) and Baladinis & Diamantopolous (2004) findings
that consumer ethnocentrism is a significant predictor of domestic purchases, is supported in
my study. Overall, my model, designed on these three mechanisms, is explaining the 47% of
the consumers’ purchasing behaviour.
58
Demographic traits of consumers were considered as important influencers in previous
researches in the field of COO. According to Samiee et al. (2005), higher subjectivity could
be found in women, older people, less educated people and people that travel less. Contrary to
said literature, different preferences expected when considering different age, gender,
education, income level and traveling experiences of respondents could not be confirmed.
Only in the case of consumer ethnocentrism, two demographic variables, education and
traveling experiences, had a significant effect. In both cases, a higher education level or a
more extensive traveling experience resulted in lower level of ethnocentrism of Italian
consumers.
Overall, the COO seems to be only partially considered by Italian consumers in coffee
consumption. On one hand, the respondents were able to correctly recognize the origin of
foreign and domestic coffee brands present on the market and research confirmed that the
existing superior quality perception of Italian coffee is influenced by the COO image.
However, on the other hand, in a joint evaluation with other cues, COO importance fell
behind other cues like price and brand.
3.3 Managerial implications
Every country is characterized by its own traditions and culture, which influence citizens’
actions and ideas, as well as their purchasing habits and decisions. Although drinking coffee
has become an everyday need everywhere in the world, due to its beneficial properties, coffee
tradition and taste are especially valued by Italian consumers and companies. In Italy, more
than anywhere else, drinking coffee is seen as a moment of pleasure. In comparison to other
coffee markets, entering the Italian market could perhaps require more adaptations to cope
with quality oriented domestic companies and consumers’ high standards.
First of all, size adaptation are necessary. Although in other countries coffee is drunk in large
size cups, in Italy the espresso is the most popular variety of coffee. Having a smaller cup
doesn’t mean that quality should be neglected. To offer a product that is equal in quality to
the Italian coffee is a necessary condition to be competitive in this already saturated market
that competes on price and invests heavily in promotions. The superior quality perception of
Italian products, coffee preparation method and consumer ethnocentrism could lead to
negative COO effect for foreign products. It is therefore not advisable for foreign companies
to advertise the COO of their coffee brand.
However, according to the findings of this study, a preference for domestic coffee doesn’t
seem to be connected to consumers’ love for their own country. Patriotism has not been
identified as significant for domestic purchases, taking in consideration different age groups,
gender, income, education level or traveling experiences of consumers. In fact, Italian
consumers are not against foreign sources of coffee. As discussed in Chapter 2.4, two
international companies, Nestlè and Mondelez, present successful examples of foreign
product entry into the Italian coffee market. First mover advantage and their introduced
innovations that changed even big Italian coffee companies’ marketing strategies seem to
have played a role in their current relevant market position.
59
3.4 Limitations and suggestions for future research
Some limitation apply to both the qualitative and quantitative study. In the qualitative
research, the participants to the focus group were mainly from young population. Picking a
more varied sample might generate more diverse opinions and open different discussions.
Therefore, I reccommend future researches to involve participants from more divere age
groups.
A first limitation of the quantitative study is the small sample size. My study included only
141 respondents, which may not be sufficient to explain the model suitably and assure a
sufficient demographically balanced respondent group.
My conceptual model was based on researches that were not focused on the coffee industry,
therefore there is a possibility that some measurements did not appropriately capture the
specificity of coffee purchase and consumption. Hence, altered measurement scales could
produce more reliable results for the identified constructs. Also, for each COO mechanism,
only one construct was selected. In future studies attempts should be made to include more
variables connected to COO to the analysis, as for example peer pressure or consumer
animosity, in order to better explain the connection between COO and domestic purchases.
COO is however not the only cue influencing coffee evaluation. In fact my research showed
that variables as price or brands are highly important for consumer in the coffee purchase.
Therefore those factor could contribute to better explain the variance of domestic purchases.
CONCLUSION
The objective of my research was to understand the purchasing patterns in Italian coffee
market, specifically by focusing on the importance the COO cue holds for Italian consumers.
My study showed that generally when selecting coffee products other cue like quality, brand
and price are taken in cosideration before COO. However the Italian coffee culture, tradition
and excellence, make it likely that when choosing among foreign and domestic coffee brands
a negative COO effect would arise for foreign coffee.
My study didn’t find interesting insights only for the role COO has in the consumers’
purchasing pattern, but also regarding the Italian coffee consumption. The majority of Italians
consume coffee everyday, multiple times per day, mainly at home and during the morning
hours. Italian coffee is consumed in small cups and it has a variety of types. The most popular
one is espresso. While in other parts of the world soluble coffee is the most rapid and
preferred solution, in Italy it doesn’t match with consumers preferences. Italians’ are highly
knowledgeable about coffee and correctly recognize the origin of many domestic and foreign
brands present on the market. In the last century, Italian coffee companies have invested
heavily in R&D, which resulted in a differentiation of their products by taste, size, symbolic
meaning and preparation method in comparison to foreign ones. Today the superior value of
Italian coffee is recognized both at the domestic and international level.
60
The results obtained in my empirical research show that quality is more important for
consumers than brands, product prices, coffee origin or packaging. Italian coffee is considered
superior to foreign products mainly due to its long tradition and peculiar preparation method,
which could spur a negative COO effect for foreign coffee. Due to their negative experiences
abroad and consumer ethnocentrism, Italian consumers believe that the majority of foreign
producers cannot satisfy their quality needs. A good coffee doesn’t depend just on the beans’
roasting, but the commitment and techniques used in its preparation contribute to its final
superior value.
The empirical research also showed how the COO negative effect could not be driven by
subjective utility. Explicitly, consumers are not affected by patriotic feelings when
considering foreign products. On the contrary, the entry of foreign brands is seen as an
opportunity for the market to evolve and to offer new innovations and higher variety of
choices to the consumers. Foreign companies present on the market are few, but they detain
substantial a competitive advantage and contributed to the development of the market.
For future research a more in-depth analysis of the domestic purchasing patterns, considering
other cues such as price and brand, would be needed to have a better understanding of which
other meaningful factors influence consumers’ purchasing decisions regarding coffee. At the
same time the increasing importance foreign consumers have for the Italian market should be
included in the analysis in order to forcast the evolution of Italian consumer purchasing
behaviour.
61
REFERENCES LIST
1. 11 Incredible Facts About The Global Coffee Industry. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from
http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-about-the-coffee-industry-2011-11?op=1&IR=T
2. A
Guide
to
Italian
Coffee.
Retrieved
August
https://www.backroads.com/blog/a-guide-to-italian-coffee/
28,
2015,
from
3. Agriculture and Ari-Food Canada (2013, February). Coffee in the United States:
Sustainability trends. Market Indicator report. Retrieved July 24, 2015, from
http://www5.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod/Internet-Internet/MISB-DGSIM/ATSSEA/PDF/6354-eng.pdf
4. Ahmed, S.A., & d'Astous, A. (1996). Country of Origin and Brand effects: A MultiDimensional and Multi-Attribute Study. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
9(2), 93 – 115.
5. Ahmed, S.A., & d'Astous, A. (2008). Perceptions of countries as producers of consumer
goods. A T-shirt study in China. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 8(2),
187 – 200.
6. Ahmed, Z.U., Johnson, J.P., Yang, X., Fatt, C.K., Teng, H.S., & Boon, L.C. (2004). Does
country of origin matter for low-involvement products? International Marketing Review,
21(1), 102 – 120.
7. Ahmed, Z. U., Zbib, I.J., Sikander, A., & Farhat, K.T. (2010). Predicting consumer
ehavior based on country of origin (COO): A case study of Lebanese consumers.
EuroMed Journal of Business, 5(1), 37 – 56.
8. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and Operation of Attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1),
27 – 58.
9. Americano. Retrieved July 27, 2015, https://www.nescafe.com/americano_en_com.axcms
10. Auruskeviciene, V., Vianelli, D., & Reardon, J. (2012). Comparison of consumer
ethnocentrism behavioural patterns in Transitional Economies. Transformations in
Business & Economics, 11(2), 20 – 35.
11. Aziz, S., Bahadur, W., Sarwar, B., Farooq R., & Arshad, M. (2014). Investigating the
Role of Demographic Characteristics on Consumer Ethnocentrism and Buying Behavior.
International Review of Management and Business Research, 3(2), 885 – 893.
12. Balabanis, G., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2004). Domestic country bias, countryof- origin
effects, and consumer ethnocentrism: a multidimensional unfolding approach. Journal of
62
the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 80 – 95.
13. Balabanis, G., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2008). Brand origin identification by consumers: a
classification perspective. Journal of International Marketing, 16(1), 39 – 71.
14. Becattini, G. (1989). Sectors and/or Districts: Some Remarks on the Conceptual
Foundations of Industrial Economics. in E. Goodman and J. Bamford (Eds.), Small Firms
and Industrial Districts in Italy, 123–35. London, UK: Routledge.
15. Belch, G.E., & Belch, M. A. (2007). Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing
Communication Perspective (7th ed.). New York, USA: McGraw Hill/Irwin.
16. Bertoldi, B., Giachino, C., & Marenco, S. (2012). Bringing gourmet coffee to India:
lessons of an Italian firm in an emerging Market. Journal of Business Strategy, 33(5), 32 –
43.
17. Bianchi, G. (2014, June 9). Contraffazione alimentare: Marchi e prodotti contraffatti,
pesante attacco al Made in Italy. Il Quotidiano della Pubblica Amministrazione. Retrieved
July
25,
2015,
from
http://www.ilquotidianodellapa.it/_contents/news/2014/giugno/1402266658155.html
18. Bilkey, W.J., & Nes, E. (1982). Country-of-Origin Effects on Product Evaluations.
Journal of International Business Studies, 13(1), 89 – 99.
19. Biotto, M., De Toni, A.F., & Nonino, F. (2012). Knowledge and cultural diffusion along
the supply chain as drivers of product quality improvement. The International Journal of
Logistics Management, 23(2), 212 – 237.
20. Caffè - I dati del mercato Italia: 3a in Europa e 4a al mondo come export di caffè
torrefatto. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.comunicaffe.it/caffe-i-dati-mercatoitalia-3a-in-europa-4a-mondo-come-export-caffe-torrefatto/
21. Caffè alla turca. Retrieved July 14, 2015, from http://unicaffe.illy.com/it/cultura/nonsolo-espresso/caffe-turco
22. Capasso, M., & Morrison, A. (2013). Innovation in industrial districts: evidence from
Italy. Management Decision, 51(6), 1225 – 1249
23. Grado di istruzione della popolazione residente di 6 anni e più (2011). In Censimento
popolazione
abitazioni.
Retrieved
July
12,
2015,
from
http://daticensimentopopolazione.istat.it/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=DICA_GRADOISTR
24. Cercato come il petrolio, amato come l'acqua. Retrieved July 19, 2015, from
http://espresso.repubblica.it/food/dettaglio/cercato-come-il-petrolio-amato-come63
lacqua/2183995
25. Chattalas, M., Kramer, T., & Takada, H. (2008). The impact of national stereotypes on the
country of origin effect. International Marketing Review, 25(1), 54 – 74.
26. Chu, P.-Y., Chang, C.-C., Chen, C.-Y., & Wang, T.-Y. (2010). Countering negative
country-of-origin effects. European Journal of Marketing, 44(7/8), 1055 – 1076
27. Coffee
blend.
Retieved
July
https://www.nescafe.com/coffee_blend_en_com.axcms
7,
28. Coffee
by
the
numbers.
Retrieved
July
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/multimedia-article/facts/
2015,
28,
29. Coffee
shop
industry
profile.
Retrieved
July
28,
http://www.firstresearch.com/industry-research/Coffee-Shops.html
30. Comitato italiano caffè (2014).
http://comitcaf.it/esportazione-caffe/
In
cifre.
Retrieved
July
20,
from
2015,
from
2015,
from
2015,
from
31. Cordell, V.V. (1992). Effects of consumer preferences for foreign sourced products.
Journal of International Business Studies, 23(2), 251 – 269.
32. Dmitrović, T., Vida, I., & Reardon, J. (2009). Purchase behavior in favor of domestic
products in the West Balkans. International Business Review, 18, 523 – 535.
33. Dmitrović, T., & Vida, I. (2010). Consumer Behaviour Induced by Product Nationality:
The Evolution of the Field and its Theoretical Antecedents. Transformations in Business
& Economics, 9(1), 145 – 165.
34. Dow, D., & Karunaratna, A. (2006). Developing a multidimensional instrument to
meaasure psychic dstance stimuli. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5), 578 –
602.
35. E.S.E. consortium (n.d.). Il mercato del caffè porzionato. Retrieved July 21, 2015, from
http://www.eseconsortium.com/mercato-caffe-porzionato/
36. Espejel, J., Fandos, C., & Flavián, C. (2007). The role of intrinsic and extrinsic quality
attributes on consumer behaviour for traditional food products. Managing Service
Quality: An International Journal, 17(6), 681 – 701.
37. European Coffee Federation (2014, July). European Coffee Report 2013/2014. Retrieved
July 21, 2015, from http://www.ecf-coffee.org/images/European_Coffee_Report_201314.pdf
64
38. Farah, A. (2012). Coffee costituents. In Coffee: Emerging Health Effects and Disease
Prevention. (pp. 21 – 58). Hoboken, USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
39. Federazione Italiana Pubblici Esercizi (n.d.). Il bar italiano. Retrieved July 28, 2015, from
http://www.fipe.it/files/ricerche/2012/il_bar_italiano.pdf
40. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2005). Chapter 6: Harvesting
and processing. Arabica coffee manual for Myanmar. Retrieved July 4, 2015, from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/ae938e/ae938e08.htm
41. Ghedini, M. (2015). Gli italiani e la tazzina. Largo consumo No. 3. Retrieved July 26,
2015,
from
http://www.largoconsumo.info/032015/ARTCaffeConsumiConsumatoriCanaleBarRistora
zioneDistribuzioneAutomatica72-0315.pdf
42. Gli italiani preferiscono prodotti alimentari di origine e provenienza italiana. Retrieved
August 28, 2015, from http://www.uniquality.it/news/28-gli-italiani-preferisconoprodotti-alimentari-di-origine-e-provenienza-italiana.html
43. Goldschein, E. (2011). 11 Incredible Facts About The Global Coffee Industry. Business
insider. Retrieved June 17, 2015 from http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-about-thecoffee-industry-2011-11?op=1#ixzz3gRQanUOZ
44. Gonzalez-Perez, M.-A., & Gutierrez-Viana, S. (2012). Cooperation in coffee markets: the
case of Vietnam and Colombia. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging
Economies, 2(1), 57 – 73.
45. Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32(1),
148 – 170.
46. Grandinetti, R. (2011). Local/global cognitive interfaces within industrial districts: an
Italian case Study. The Learning Organization, 18 (4), 301 – 312.
47. Granzin K. L., & Olsen, J. E. (1998). Americans’ choice of domestic over foreign
products: A matter of helping behavior?. Journal of Business Research, 43(1), 39 – 54.
48. Gray, J. (1998k). Caffeine, coffee and health. Nutrition & Food Science, 98 (6), 314 –
319.
49. Griseri, P. (2014, December 19). Industria alimentare, ecco chi sono i padroni del cibo. La
Repubblica.
Retrieved
August
6,
2015,
from
65
http://www.repubblica.it/salute/alimentazione/2014/12/19/news/i_padroni_del_cibo103273466/
50. Inventario
Italiano.
Retrieved
http://www.inventarioitaliano.it/alfabeto/h
August
6,
2015,
from
51. Hamzaoui, L., & Merunka, D. (2006). The impact of country of design and country of
manufacture on consumer perceptions of bi-national products’ quality: an empirical model
based on the concept of fit. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(3), 145 – 155.
52. Han, C.M., & Terpstra, V. (1988). Country-of-Origin Effects for Uni-National and BiNational, Journal of International Business Studies, (19)2, 235 – 255.
53. Han, C. M. (1990). Testing the Role of Country Image in Consumer Choice Behaviour.
European Journal of Marketing, 6, 24 – 39.
54. Harun, A., Wahid, N. A., Mohammad, O., & Ignatius., J. (2011).The Concept of Culture
of Brand Origin (COBO) A New Paradigm in the Evaluation of Origin Effect.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 1(3), 282 –
290.
55. Hong, S., & Wyer, R. Jr (1989). Effects of country-of-origin and product-attribute
information on product evaluation: an information processing perspective. Journal of
Consumer Research, 16, 175 – 187.
56. How to survive North America’s terrible coffee. Retrieved July 26, 2015, from
http://www.traveller.com.au/how-to-survive-north-americas-terrible-coffee-2y9yx
57. How
to
grind
coffee.
Retrieved
June
http://www.coffeeteawarehouse.com/coffee-grind.html
28,
2015,
from
58. How
to
brew
coffe.
Retrieved
June
http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=71
28,
2015,
from
59. Huang, Y.-A., Phau, I., & Lin, C. (2010). Consumer animoity, economic hardship and
normative influence: how do they affect consumers’ purhcase intention?. European
Journal of Marketing, 44(7/8), 909 – 937.
60. Hunter, J., & Cox, A. (2014). Learning over tea! Studying in informal learning spaces.
New Library World, 155 (1/2), 34 – 50.
61. Huy, H., Svein, T., & Olsen, O. (2013). Consideration set size, variety seeking and the
satisfaction-repurchase loyalty relationship at a product category level. Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25 (4), 590 – 613.
66
62. I numeri del caffè. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.torrefazionebugella.it/inumeri-del-caffe.html
63. Il caffè filtro. Retrieved July 14, 2015, from http://unicaffe.illy.com/it/cultura/non-soloespresso/caffe-filtro
64. Il caso Ilko coffee interantional. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from
https://elearning2.uniroma1.it/pluginfile.php/96917/mod_resource/content/2/caso%20ILL
Y_2013.pdf
65. Illy
in
breve.
Retrieved
July
http://www.illy.com/wps/wcm/connect/it/azienda/societa
23,
2015,
from
66. International Coffee Agreement (2012, September 12). Trend in coffee consumption in
selected
importing
countries.
Retrieved
July
13,
2015,
from
http://dev.ico.org/documents/icc-109-8e-trends-consumption.pdf
67. International Coffee Organization (2013). International Coffee Organization 1963 to
2013: 50 years serving the world coffee community. Retrieved July 6, 2015, from
http://www.ico.org/documents/cy2012-13/history-ico-50-years-e.pdf
68. Interafrican Coffee Organization (2013). 2012/2013 coffee market review. Retrieved June
2,
2015,
from
http://www3.unict.it/mplatania/paper_platania_privitera_efita07_20070330105904.pdf
69. Interantional Coffee Organization (2013b). Coffee 2013: Ready for Take-Off. Retrieved
July 20, 2015, from http://www.ico.org/event_pdfs/seminar-consumption/rabobank-e.pdf
70. International Coffee Organization (2014). US snapshot. Retrieved July 24, 2015, from
http://dev.ico.org/documents/cy2013-14/pscb-nca.pdf
71. International Coffee Organization (2015a). Historical data on the global coffee trade.
Retrieved July 5, 2015, from http://www.ico.org/new_historical.asp?section=Statistics
72. International Coffee Organization (2015b). Trade Statistics Tables. Retrieved July 6,
2015. http://www.ico.org/trade_statistics.asp
73. International Coffee Organization (2015c). Annual review 2013/2014. Retrieved July 8,
2015, from http://www.ico.org/annual_review.asp?section=About_Us
74. International coffee organization – Historical data. Retrieved January 13, 2015, from
http://www.ico.org/new_historical.asp
75. Insch, A., & Florek, M. (2009). Prevalence of country of origin associations on the
67
supermarket shelf. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 37(5), 453
– 471.
76. Italian
coffee
culture:
a
guide.
Retrieved
July
26,
2015,
from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/italy/6246202/Italian-coffeeculture-a-guide.html
77. Italian Trade Agency (n.d.). The aroma of Italian coffee pervades the world. Retrieved
June 13, 2015, from http://www.italtrade.com/focus/6312.htm
78. Italians: The 7 stereotypes of coffee drinkers. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from
http://www.caffepompeii.it/en/italians-the-7-stereotypes-of-coffee-drinkers/
79. Istat (2011). Il sistema delle imprese effetti della crisi e potenzialità di crescita.
80. Istat (2014). Viaggio e vacanze in Italia e all’estero 2014
81. Istat (2014). Istruzione e formazione 2014
82. Istat (2014). Bilancio demografico 2014
83. Javalgi, R. G., Pioche Khare, V., & Gross, A. C. (2005). An application of the consumer
ethnocentrism model to French consumers. International Business Review, 14(3), 325 –
344
84. Jin, Z., Chansarkar, B., & Kondap, N. M. (2006). Brand origin in an emerging market:
perceptions of Indian consumers. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 18(4),
283 – 302.
85. Johansson, J.K., Douglas, S.P., & Nonaka, I. (1985). Assessing the Impact of Country of
Origin on Product Evaluations: A New Methodological Perspective. Journal of Marketing
Research, 22(4), 388 – 396.
86. Joo, S.-J., Min, H., Kwon, I.-W. G., & Kwon, H. (2010). Comparative efficiencies of
specialty coffee retailers from the perspectives of socially responsible global sourcing.
The International Journal of Logistics Management, 21(3), 490 – 509.
87. Kay, M.J. (2006). Strong brands and corporate brands. European Journal of Marketing,
40 (7/8), 742 – 760
88. Keillor, B. D., Hult, T. G., Erffmeyer, R. C., & Barbakus, E. (1996). NATID. The
development and application of a national identity measure for use in international
marketing. Journal of International Marketing, 4(2), 57 – 73
89. Kimbo
(2013).
Comunicato
stampa.
68
Retrieved
July
29,
2015,
from
http://kimbo.it/sites/kimbo/IMG/pdf/05.kimbo_festeggia_i_50_anni_con_un_bilancio_pos
itivo_in_controtendenza_con_il_mercato.pdf
90. Kimeshan N. (2013, October 13). Top 10 Coffee Consumer Countries [Blog post].
Retrieved July 12, 2015, from http://www.kimeshan.com/2013/10/09/top-10-coffeeconsumer-countries
91. Klein, J. G., Ettenson, R., & Morris, M. D. (1998). The animosity model of foreign
product purchase: an empirical test in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of
Marketing, 62, 89 – 100.
92. Knight, G.A. (1999). Consumer preferences for foreign and domestic products. Journal
Of Consumer Marketing, 16(2), 151-162.
93. Kotler P., & Armstrong G. (2012). Principles of Marketing (14th ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
USA: Prentice Hall.
94. La French press. Retrieved July 14, 2015, from http://unicaffe.illy.com/it/cultura/nonsolo-espresso/french-press
95. La moka. Retrieved July 14, 2015, from http://unicaffe.illy.com/it/cultura/non-soloespresso/moka
96. Lantz, G. & Loeb, S. (1996). Country of origin and ethnocentrism: an analysis of
Canadian and American preferences using social identity theory. In Kim P. Corfman and
John G. Lynch Jr., Provo (Eds.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 374 – 478).
UT : Association for Consumer Research.
97. Lavazza, il caffè italiano che punta all’estero. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from
http://www.spazioimpresa.biz/case_history/lavazza-il-caffe-italiano-che-punta-all-estero784.php
98. Lavazza (n.d.). Bilancio di sostenibilità 2014. Retrieved July 21, 2015, from
http://www.lavazza.it/it/sostenibilita/valori/bilancio-sostenibilita/
99. Lin, L. Y., & Chen, C. S. (2006). The influence of the country-of-origin image, product
knowledge and product involvement on consumer purchase decisions: an empirical study
of insurance and catering services in Taiwan. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23 (5), 248
– 265.
100. Maheswaran, D. (1994). Country of Orgin as a Stereotype: Effects of
Consumer
Expertise and Attribute Strength on Product Evaluation, Journal of Consumer Research,
21, 354-365.
69
101. Mattia, G. (2004). Balsamic vinegar of Modena. British Food Journal, 106 (10/11), 722
- 745.
102. Martìn, O.M., & Cerviño, J. (2011). Towards an integrative framework of brand country
of origin recognition determinants. International Marketing Review, 28(6), 530 – 558.
103. Massimo Zanetti Beverage Group (n.d.). Bilancio consolidato 2014. Retrieved July 22,
2015, from http://investors.mzb-group.com/fase2/ita/bilanci-relazioni/bilanci-annuali/
104. Mercato
del
caffè.
Retrieved
July
http://www.slideshare.net/saverio4zanetti/caff-italia-lavazza
20,
2015,
from
105. Mercato italiano del caffè 2013-14: consumi in calo, ma crescita dell’export. Retrieved
July 20, 2015, from http://www.beverfood.com/documenti/mercato-italiano-del-caffe2013-14-consumi-in-calo-ma-crescita-dellexport/
106. Ministry
of
agricultural,
food
and
forestry
policies
(2015).
https://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/8531
107. Mitchell, V.-W. (1999). Consumer perceived risk: conceptualizations and models.
European Journal of Marketing, 33(1/2), 163 – 96.
108. Miscelare e tostare. Retrieved July 2, from http://unicaffe.illy.com/it/cultura/dallapianta/miscelare-tostare
109. Mollica, F. (2012, May 14). Caffé Kimbo punta all'estero e si rifà il look. Affari italiani.
Retrieved
July
29,
2015,
from
http://www.affaritaliani.it/rubriche/cibo_vino/kimbo140512.html?refresh_cens
110. Monk, D., & Ryding, D. (2007). Service quality and training: a pilot study. British Food
Journal, 109 (8), 627 – 636.
111. Morgan, D. (1988). Focus group as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
112. Morris, J. (2008). A short history of Espresso in Italy and the world. In Cociancich, M.
(Eds.), 100% Espresso Italiano (pp. 4 -32). Trieste, IT.
113. Nagashima, A. (1970). A comparison of Japanese and U.S. attitudes toward foreign
products. Journal of Marketing, 34, 68 – 74.
114. Nakos G.E., & Hajidimitriou Y.A. (2007). The impact of national animosity on
consumer purchases: the modifying factor of personal characteristics. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, 19 (3), 53 – 72.
70
115. Nanut, V., & Tracogna, A. (2003). Processi di internazionalizzazione delle imprese:
vecchi e nuovi paradigmi. Sinergie Journal, 60(3), 11 – 34.
116. Nebenzahl, I., Jaffe, E., & Lampert, S. (1997). Towards a theory of country of country
image effect on product evaluation. Management International Review, 37(1), 27-49
117. Nestlé (2014). Annual report 2014. Retrieved August 3, 2015, from
http://www.nestle.com/asset-library/documents/library/documents/annual_reports/2014annual-report-en.pdf
118. Nicholson, M. (2014, March 22). Americans Are Getting Even More Pretentious About
How They Drink Coffee. Huffpost Business. Retrieved July 26, 2015, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/22/coffee-drinking-americans_n_5013544.html
119. Nora, G.L. (2013). Aziende Riunite Caffè. Coffee merchants since 1856. Il caffè,
classificazione, assaggio, tostatura. Milano, IT: Aziende Riunite Caffè Spa
120. Orrù, M. (1991). The Explanation of Economic Structures. Theory and Society, 20(4),
539 – 553.
121. Osservatorio internazionale (n.d.). Il caffè. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from
http://www.oifb.com/index.php/caffe/111-il-caffe
122. Osservatorio nazionale distretti italiani (n.d.). Distretto industriale del caffè. Retrieved
July 20, 2015, from http://www.osservatoriodistretti.org/node/96/dati-qualitativi
123. Palmer, A. (2000). Principles of marketing. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
124. Papadopoulos, N. (1993). What product country images are and are not. In
Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (Eds.), Product country images: Impact and role in
International Marketing. (pp. 3 – 35). New York, USA: International Business Press.
125. Paswan, A.K., & Sharma, D. (2004). Brand-country of origin (COO) knowledge and
COO image: Investigation in an emerging franchise market. Journal of Product and
Brand Management, 13(3), 144 – 155.
126. Platania, M., & Privitera, D. (n.d.). Possibilities and purposes of Internet usage:
authentic and fake Italian food products. Retrieved May 2, 2015, from
http://www3.unict.it/mplatania/paper_platania_privitera_efita07_20070330105904.pdf
127. Phau, I., & Prendergast, G. (2000). Country of origin of brand: an evaluation tool for
hybrid products. Journal of Brand Management, 7(5), 366 - 375.
71
128. Ponte, S. (2002). The “Latte Revolution”? Regulation, Markets and Consumption in the
Global Coffee Chain. World development, 30(7), 1099 – 1122.
129. Pratap, S. (2014). Towards a framework for performing outsourcing capability. Strategic
Outsourcing: An International Journal, 7(3), 226 – 252.
130. Produzione e lavorazione
http://www.salabar.it/node/318
del
caffè.
Retrieved
July
15,
2015,
from
131. Peter, J. P., & Olson, J. C. (2002). Consumer behaviour and marketing strategy (6th ed.).
New York, USA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
132. Qun, W., Shafi, A., Afzal, F., & Nazir, N. (2014). Changing the HRM Vision into
Reality the Role of Manager’s Skills for Implementing Change Within the Organization:
A Chinese Study. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(38), 189 – 206.
133. Rezvani S., Dehkordi, G. J., Rahman, M. S., Fouladivanda, F., Habibi M., & Ehtebasi S.
(2012). A conceptual Study on the country of origin effect on consumer purchase
intention. Asian social science, 8(12), 205 – 215.
134. Roth, M.S., & Romeo, J.B. (1992). Matching Product Catgeory and Country Image
Perceptions: A Framework for ManagingCountry-Of-Origin Effects. Journal of
International Business Studies, 23(3), 477 – 497.
135. Rybina, L., Reardon, J., & Humphrey, J. (2010). Patriotism, cosmopolitanism, consumer
ethnocentrism and purchase behavior in Kazakhstan. Organizations and markets in
emerging economies, 1(2), 92 – 108.
136. Samiee, S. (1994). Customer evaluation of products in a global market. Journal of
International Business Studies, 25(3), 579–604.
137. Samiee, S., Shimp, T.A, & Sharma, S. (2005). Brand Origin Recognition Accuracy: Its
Antecedents and Consumers' Cognitive Limitations. Journal of International Business
Studies, 36(4), 379-397.
138. SASI Group (University of Sheffield) and Mark Newman (University of Michigan
(2006).
Coffee
consumption.
Retrieved
July
13,
2015,
from
http://www.worldmapper.org/posters/worldmapper_1038_coffee_consumption_ver2.pdf
139. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business studies
(5th ed.). Harlow, UK: Financial Times/Prentice Hall
140. Scagliarini, R. (2010, March 15). Caffè Nestlé attenta: c' è la carica degli italiani.
Corriere
della
sera.
Retrieved
July
23,
2015
from
72
http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2010/marzo/15/Caffe_Nestle_attenta_carica_degli_ce_0_
100315008.shtml
141. Scarci, E. (2013, September 5). Caffè, Nespresso vola con le capsule. Il sole 24 ore.
Retrieved 4 August, 2015, from http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/impresa-e-territori/201309-05/caffe-nespresso-vola-capsule-082149.shtml?uuid=AbgUVUTI
142. Scarci, E. (2014, May 29). La crisi colpisce la tazzina di caffè ma non le capsule per
l’espresso.
Il
sole
24
ore.
Retrieved
July
21,
2015,
from
http://emanuelescarci.blog.ilsole24ore.com/2014/05/29/la-crisi-colpisce-la-tazzina-dicaffe-ma-non-le-capsule-per-lespresso/
143. Shabbir, M. S., Kirmani, S., Iqbal, J., & Khan, B. (2009). COO and brand name’s affect
on consumer behavior and purchase intention in Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, 1(3), 84 – 95.
144. Solomon, M., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S., & Hogg, M. K. (2006). Consumer
behaviour: A European Perspective (3rd ed.). UK: Prentice-Hall
145. Spagnuolo, E. (2014, March 10). Le 10 cose che (forse) non sai sul caffè. Focus.
Retrieved July 23, 2015, from http://www.focus.it/ambiente/10-cose-che-forse-non-saisul-caffe?gimg=40260&gpath=#img40260
146. Specialty
coffee
defined.
Retrieved
July
5,
2015,
from
http://www.longbottomcoffee.com/index.php/coffee-101/the-coffee-bean/specialtycoffee-defined.html
147. Spencers-Thomas, O. (2012, March 20). Writing a press release. Retrieved October 21,
2015, from http://www.owenspencer-thomas.com/journalism/media-tips/writing-a-pressrelease
148. Starbucks (2013). Starbucks Annual Report. Retrieved January 15, 2015, from
http://investor.starbucks.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=99518&p=irol-reportsAnnual
149. Starbucks Corporation (2015). Company Information. Retrieved July 25, 2015, from
http://www.starbucks.com/about-us/company-information
150. Stile italiano e italian way of life: carte vincenti per il made in italy?. Retrieved July 10,
2015,
from
http://www.assocamerestero.com/default.asp?idtema=1&idtemacat=1&page=informazio
ni&action=read&index=1&idcategoria=25377&idinformazione=23405
151. Storia
delle
macchine
per
caffè.
Retrieved
July
http://www.nuovasimonelli.it/it/sapevi-che/macchine-per-caffe/storia.html
73
23,
2015,
152. The 4 Most Popular Coffee Brewing Methods. Retrieved July 17, 2015, from
http://www.streetdirectory.com/restaurants/articles/10/coffee/the_4_most_popular_coffee
_brewing_methods.html
153. The
different
types
of
coffee
drinks.
http://typeslist.com/different-types-of-coffee-drinks/
Retrieved
154. The
history
of
coffee.
Retrieved
July
http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=68
July
5,
20,
2015,
from
from
155. The History of First, Second, and Third Wave Coffee. Retrieved July 29, 2015, from
http://www.craftbeveragejobs.com/the-history-of-first-second-and-third-wave-coffee22315/
156. The role of coffee in American independence. Retrieved July 24, 2015, from
http://www.rogersfamilyco.com/index.php/coffees-role-in-american-independence/
157. The
world
of
Italian
coffee.
http://www.lifeinitaly.com/food/coffee.asp
Retrieved
July
25,
158. Top
10
coffee
infographics.
Retrieved
July
24,
http://www.infographicszone.com/food/top-10-coffee-infographics
2015,
from
2015,
from
159. Tse, D.K., & Gorn, G.J. (1993). An Experiment on the Salience of Country-of-Origin in
the Era of Global Brands. Journal of International Marketing, 1(1), 57-76.
160. Ukers, W. H. (1992). Factory preparation of roasted coffee. All about coffee. Retrieved
July 2, 2015, from http://www.web-books.com/Classics/ON/B0/B701/30MB701.html
161. Un paese di bevitori di caffè. Ma è proprio vero?. Retrieved July 26, 2015, from
http://www.apertamentericerche.it/it/un-paese-di-bevitori-di-caffe-ma-e-proprio-vero/
162. Università Bocconi (2009). Geografie del nuovo Made in Italy. Retrieved May 26, 2015,
from
http://www.unibocconi.eu/wps/wcm/connect/71c4d7004b6f9c039704b76566de0c2e/ITA
LIA+Symbola_Part1.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&useDefaultText=0&useDefaultDesc=0
163. Usunier, J.C. (2006). Relevance in business research: The case of country of origin
research in marketing. European Management Review, 3(1), 60 – 73.
164. Usunier, J.C. (2011). The shift from manufacturing to brand origin: suggestions for
improving COO relevance. International Marketing Review, 28(5), 486 – 496.
74
165. Veale, R., & Quester, P. (2009). Tasting quality: the roles of intrinsic and extrinsic cues.
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21(1), 195 – 207.
166. Vida, I., & Reardon, J. (2008). Domestic consumption: rational, affective or normative
choice?.Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(1), 34 – 44.
167. Watson, J. J., & Wright, K. (2000). Consumer ethnocentrism and attitudes toward
domestic and foreign products. European Journal of Marketing, 34 (9/10), 1149 – 1166.
168. Wall, M., Liefeld, J.P., & Heslop, L.A. (1991). Impact of country of origin cues on
consumer judgments in multi-cue situations: a covariance analysis. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 19(2), 105 – 113.
169. What
is
coffee?.
Retrieved
July
http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=67
5,
2015,
from
170. What is a coffee blend?. Retrieved July 23, 2015, from http://www.wisegeek.org/whatis-a-coffee-blend.htm
171. Why do Britons drink so much instant coffee?. Retrieved July 15, 2015, from
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-26869244
75
76
APPENDIXES
TABLE OF APPENDIXES
Appendix A: Transcript of focus group discussion.…………………………………………...1
Appendix B: Quantitative research questionnaire……………………………………………..7
Appendix C: Hypotheses H1, H3 and H4 output…………………………………………….12
Appendix D: Grapgic results for H1, H3 and H4 putput……………………………………..13
Appendix E: Hypothesis H2 output…………………………………………………………..14
Appendix F: Hypothesis H5 output…………………………………………………………..15
Appendix G: Hypothesis H6 output…………………………………………………………..18
Appendix H: Hypothesis H7 output…..……………………………………………………....21
APPENDIX A: Transcript of focus group discussion
Alessandro, Alessia, Annette, Chiara, Davide, Lea, Maja, Stefano
My research is focused on your habits in the moment of purchase, in particular while buying
coffee. First of all, I would like to ask some general questions. First, when you go to the
supermarket on what do you base your choice of the food products? How do you choose a
product?
Davide:
I start from my habits, what I want to eat during the week.
Maja:
It really depends on the type of product. I look a lot at packaging. If it is cute.
Yes, for certain products there is no packaging, but when talking about food
I’m concerned with how the product looks like, how it is presented.
Alessia:
In some supermarkets there could be promotions going on. I search for
promotions on certain products.
Maja:
Then the brand, obviously. I’m interested in brands I already know.
Alessia:
If I don’t know a product, I browse through spots, tv, catalogues, promotions..
If I find a product attractive, for its design, price, if I think it is functional and
of high quality, then I buy it.
Stefano:
I look also at the ingredients. There are many ingredients I would prefer to not
be present in the products I buy.
Annette:
For me as well it is important that there are not present any food preservatives.
Do you think that the same factors are important for coffee? Which is the most important and
why?
Maja:
Probably all of the mentioned factors are important for coffee as well, but we
should put them in the correct order.
Davide:
For sure the quality of coffee can be placed on the top position.
Stefano:
What I believe all of us search in coffee is quality, that it would taste good.
Chiara:
I choose coffee based on its quality. Which means that the product is Italian,
brands like Lavazza, illy.
Alessia:
I work in the field of coffee. When i choose a coffee I check the type of coffee,
in other words I check the ingredients. For me it is essential to have it specified
if it is Arabica or Robusta variety.
Lea:
Price can reflect the product quality in my opinion. For example in a
supermarket 1 kg of coffee could be 3.50 €, but for the same price we could
not buy neither half of the quantity of illy’s coffe. From this price difference, I
1
infer that the 1 kg coffee’s taste will not satisfy many consumers, including
myself.
Annette:
But we should be careful with brands. The brand is not always synonym with
high quality. Sometimes certain brands have high prices that do not reflect the
quality of the products.
Davide:
There are many types of coffee, therefore I think that the choice depends on the
taste one searches for. I usually try many types of coffee brands, the one that I
remember the most for its good taste, becomes my first choice and I start to
buy it regularly.
Alessia:
Sometimes I check if the coffee is Arabica or Robusta.
Maja:
I rather check if it is strong or mild flavour. I don’t look at the type of coffee
because I know that many roasters in order to differentiate mix various types of
Arabica and Robusta coffee beans.
You didn’t mention COO. Why?
Maja:
COO of the brands? Or the coffee? Sometimes coffee comes from an exotic
country, far away from us.
Alessia:
If it is 100% Arabica variety I bet it comes from Brazil. I rely on that.
Alessandro:
Usually the majority of products present in the supermarkets are of Italian
origin. Or at least I believe so.
What does COO mean for you? Specifically for coffee.
Chiara:
COO indicates the place where the coffee is transformed. For example, I
consider the coffee roasted in Italy Italian coffee.
Stefano:
I agree. And it is important for me that it is transformed in Italy.
Davide:
For me it is the opposite. COO indicates where the coffee beans came from.
Alessandro:
It seems like it depends. In the end, COO could indicate all of the things
mentioned, because for example Italy doesn’t harvest coffee plants, but coffee
transformed in Brasil, will taste differently from the one roasted in Italy, even
though they use both the same Brasilian coffee beans.
Davide:
But if you think deeply about it, Lavazza’s coffee is in fact not Italian, but
Brasilian, if the beans comes from Brasil. I would say that COO is were the
beans come from. The roasting is made here, but the coffee, meant as the bean,
2
cannot be found here.
Alessia:
Origin means just that, where do the raw material come from.
Chiara:
COO means something else for me. I rarely check the origin of the coffee
beans, rather I check the origin of the company that roasts it. I’m searching for
quality products and I presume that companies from certain country pay more
attention to quality. I believe that Italian producers offer quality, I trust that
they themselves would have ascertained that the raw materials used in the
production would be the best. Instead of checking the origin of the coffee
beans, I concentrate more on the brand, because knowing if it is Italian or
foreign, I will know who pays attention to quality and who doesn’t.
Annette:
However neither producers help us to understand better the meaning of COO.
For example illy introduced limited editions, coffee from South Africa, Brazil,
etc. each with a different taste. In those cases it seems like the roasters are just
intermediaries between the growers and final consumers.
Davide:
The origin of the coffee beans, at the end is not that important. The taste of
coffee is though. Drinking coffee is a moment of true pleasure for me. So i
search for a good coffee, that it is for me of quality, nevertheless the origin.
So when you buy food product do you in general pay attention to the COO of the products?
Alessia:
Well, yes. I think that COO is important, but not for all product categories.
Generally I pay attention to it for products that are fresh, like meat, vegetables
or fish. Let’s say that the products should be fresh to be good and of high
quality. For example, the other day I wanted to buy fish and I noticed that the
kind I wanted was coming from Greece. That was disturbing. Why should I
buy fish from Greece when we can find the same fish in our sea so close by?
Coming here from so far, I don’t perceive it as fresh and tasting.
Maja:
If the products come from specific countries, because it’s the only place where
you can find them and consequently their price is usually high, then in that
case I check the origin to make sure that it comes from that and only that
country. For example that’s my reasoning for soy sauce, I will check that it
comes from Japan.
Stefano:
For coffee, I usually don’t mind the origin, but however if the coffee is Made
in China for example based on my experiences with other Chinese products, I
would definitely not buy it. Certain countries definitely get excluded from my
choices, because I don’t trust the quality of their production, a bit due to my
experience, a bit due to stereotypes.
3
Annette:
If coffee would be made in China I would not buy it for sure.
Alessandro:
Sometimes we don’t trust how the coffee is produced. But if coffee beans
come from Brazil rather than South Africa, really doesn’t matter.
Lea:
I don’t look at the origin of the coffee, because the origin is uncertain.
Roasting companies during the production process mix different coffee beans’
varieties coming from different countries. Therefore I don’t consider COO
because one single COO cannot be attributed to a coffee product.
Davide:
Sometimes the cultivation location are not significant before the actual
purchase, but it becomes important after it. We could buy a coffee not knowing
its origin, and when drinking it we could be charmed by its taste. In that case
we would probably start to make more attention to that brand and his origin.
Chiara:
It is clear that for coffee, its origin is the place where the coffee beans come
from. But I don’t consider it an important information to be checked. Rather I
control the origin of the company that produces the final coffee product. I
believe in Italian roasters to offer quality. I trust that they have already
ascertained that the raw materials are the best. So instead of controling the
origin, I look at the name of the brand, if it is a foreign or Italian name,
because I associate it with the country where it is roasted.
Alessia:
For a product like coffee, the origin is not that much important as quality. For
big companies like Lavazza or illy quality is everything. So we all know that
the coffee we are buying is a good coffee.
Annette:
I agree, but it is not exclusively a big brands’ priority. Even small companies
are attentive to the quality. I tried many local brands, less known, like
Vergano, Primo aroma,.. and they offer all really good coffee.
Would you link the concept of Made in Italy to coffee?
Alessandro:
Yes, coffee is a product of high quality.
Davide:
When we talk about quality, especially for the food sector, Italy is superior
compared to most of the other countries.
Alessia:
I believe that’s because coffee as other Made in Italy products have tradition,
centuries of imports and preparation of coffee that surpassed others from the
beginning.
Chiara:
In fact, every product could be of quality, nevertheless its origin. But what we
know about Italian roasters is that they will transform the product in a certain
way compared to foreign producers, that we link to a superior quality.
4
Lea:
If coffee is produced in a country that you don’t really trust for its quality, if
you know the brand then it’s different.
Chiara:
In other words Italy has a certain tradition of making coffee, which I don’t
think foreign companies have, so I would rather not buy foreign brands.
Maja:
Probably if someone would advertize a coffee as produced according to
German or French tradition I would never consider buying it.
Alessandro:
As you know the brand, you could get more information on it and its products,
like for example if it was roasted in Italy or not.
What do you think distinguishes Italian coffee from foreign one? Have you tried coffee
abroad? How was it?
Chiara:
I would rather not buy foreign coffee, because I don’t think they have the
tradition of Italian coffee preparation method.
Lea:
In Italy we know the foreign brands and even if foreign we know that they are
good. Like Hag, Julius Meilnl.
Davide:
Even if foreign it doesn’t matter. A coffee is not less good if produced abroad.
I expect that coffeee products I find on Italian market, be it domestic products
or foreign ones, are good because they will use a certain Italian preparation
method.
Maja:
Lately Nespresso is really popular. They introduced capsule solution, which is
not originally an Italian method, but it became so, because Italians use capsules
extensively. The offer enlarged, satisfying the needs of certain consumers.
With capsules the quantity of coffee provided is exactly enough for one person,
while in the more traditional moka, there is always some coffee left. The waste
is reduced.
When you go abroad and you want to drink coffee, what do you do?
Maja:
When I’m abroad, I shiver at the idea that they would offer me non Italian
coffee.
Alessia:
Abroad I search for places that serve Italian coffee, I tried local coffee and it’s
really not comparable. The coffee is more watery. Foreign production doesn’t
seem to be qualitative enough, but with Italian coffee I’m sure to drink good
coffee.
5
Stefano:
The quality of Italian superior production is higher than foreign one. With
Italian coffee I can buy my products without worrying about that.
Chiara:
If I’m abroad and have to choose among brands i don’t know, I will choose the
Italian one. I tried several times other foreign coffees but they neve satisfied
me.
Lea:
If you go to an Italian bar you know that they serve it in a certain way, with the
bars abroad it is unknown. Going abroad I’m not enthusiast at the idea of
drinking coffee that’s not Italian.
Maja:
To an inexpert eye in some places it could seem that foreigners imitate Italian
style of preparing coffee, but they lack the techniques and devotion to coffee
preparation. For example, it really surprised me when abroad in a certain bars
they use a dirty rag to clean the filter when coffee powder is overflowing. That
was for me a clear sign that foreigners are not able to make good coffee.
Annette:
If I know where to find Italian coffee I go there. Most of the times it happened
that I found it by coincidence. Otherwise if I cannot find it, I enter in a bar that
looks nice.
Davide:
If I don’t find a place that serves Italian coffee, I resist and drink the coffee that
I find. If I perceive it will not be good, I mix it with milk and sugar.
Have you ever thought that buying foreign coffee is not patriotic?
Alessia:
Sometimes I buy foreign brands, but when I do, I never consider feelings such
as patriotism.
Maja:
I don’t buy Italian brands thinking about my identity and Italian economy, but
I make my choices based on my personal preferences.
Chiara:
I would define myself a bit patriotic, especially when food is concerned. When
I go shopping I prefer to conform to the products or brands that I know. But on
the other hand I consider myself pretty open too. When abroad I like to try
local products and local food, that’s valid also for coffee. […] Yes, buying
Italian products satisfies me also because I support Italian economy in this
way. However even though I believe Italy is excellent in the food sector, for
certain products I choose foreign production, for example for olives I prefer
buying Greek olives that for me taste the best.
6
Have you ever thought to buy Italian coffee in order to support Italian economy?
Alessandro:
I don’t think directly about it, but in the end with my purchases I sustain Italian
economy anyway, as I buy only Italian coffee brands.
Annette:
More than supporting the economy, I gladly support companies for their ideals
or corporate social responsibility programs. So by buying those products, I
perceive it like both me and the company can get the maximum gain out of it
and help someone.
Do you think that foreign coffee brands are unnecessary on Italian market? Why?
Chiara:
We are part of a global community, nowadays we have products coming from
all over the world. It’s true that those big companies could be a threat for
smaller Italian companies, but having imported product enriches our markets
and gives us a wider selection of products. As a consumer I don’t want to be
limited in my choices, I want to have many options, including foreign ones,
and then it would be me to judge which is the best product for me.
Lea:
Lately Nespresso, a foreign brand, is really popular on the market. It
introduced the capsule coffee solution that detaches from Italian tradition and
brings new ways to make coffee. I understand why it is so loved: with capsules
there are no wastes of coffee because each capsule contains the right amount of
coffee powder necessary for one cup of coffee, contrary to the moka, where
some coffee is still left in the machine. Nespresso is focusing on that, gaining
popularity, although it is not matching with Italian coffee culture.
Maja:
Like Nespresso other foreign companies could enter the market with high
qualitative products or techniques that we cannot find in other places at the
moment. We all realize that it could be positive for the economy, but at the
same time negative for tradition.
Annette:
However changes can stimulate people to change. Changes are not always
radical, but they can bring people to try and accept diversity and novelties.
That’s why I’m not opposed to competitors entry in the market. I’m sure that it
would not be damaged by it, because our coffee culture and tradition are too
embedded and superior to suddenly be substituted by the competition.
APPENDIX B: Quantitative research questionnaire
Screening question:
Do you drink coffee?
Yes  continue
No  finish the test
7
1. How often do you drink coffee?
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
1 time per day
times per day
times
more than 3 times
sometimes
2. Where do you drink coffee the most?
a) at home
b) at bar
c) other (restaurant, vending machines..)
3. When do you consume coffee the most?
a) For breakfast or in morning hours
b) after meals
c) in the afternoon alone or with friends
4. Following you will find the reasons for drinking coffee. How much do you agree with
them?
a) It’s a powerful remedy to wake up
b) It’s a habit
c) It’s a moment to sit down and relax
d) it’s a meeting place (lover, friends,..)
5. Which is the brand that you majorly purchase?
a) Excelsior
b) Hag
c) Illy
d) Kimbo
e) Lavazza
f) Nespresso
g) Others (specify)
6. Where do you think those brands come from?
ITALY
GERMANY
FRANCE
EXCELSIOR
HAG
HAUSBRANDT
ILLY
JULIUS MEINL
KIMBO
LAVAZZA
NESPRESSO
SEGAFREDO
STARBUCKS
8
SWITZERLAND
USA
OTHER
7. When you want to take a coffee in a bar, you select the bar based on:
1–
absolutely
not agree
2- not
agree
3indifferent
4–
agree
5–
absolutely
agree
the coffee brand they are serving
The price
the variety of sweets that I can eat,
while drinking it
the atmosphere of the bar (lights,
design, comfortable chairs…)
the closest bar to me
From now on the questions are revolving around your purchases of coffee products (for
example in supermarkets or specialized stores) for domestic use.
8. How much do you consider the following factor in your purchasing decision process of
coffee products:
1 – absolutely
not important
2- not
34 – important
important indifferent
5 – absolutely
important
PRICE
(discounts)
QUALITY
(TASTE) of
coffee
Known Coffee
BRAND
COO of the
coffee beans
COO as the
place where
coffee is
manufactured
Packaging
9. Express your opinion about domestic products. How do you purchase your products?
1–I
2–I
34–I 5–
strongly disagree neither
agree strongly
disagree
agree or
agree
disagree
Mostly I try to buy coffee brands of
domestic roasters.
Whenever possible I take time to look
at labels in order to knowlingly buy
more coffee brands of domestic
companies.
I shop first at retail outlests that make
special effort to offer coffee brands of
domestic production.
9
10. How do you perceive the production “Made in Italy”?
1
2
3
4
5
Unreasonably
priced
Poor
workmanship
Common
Technically
backward
Unreliable
Imitative
Low quality
Mass produced
Reasonably
priced
Good
workmanship
Exclusive
Technically
advanced
Reliable
Innovative
High quality
Handmade
11. Indicate how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding
Italian coffee compared to foreign one:
Relatively to foreign
coffee products, Italian
coffee..
… has a superior
aroma.
…is roasted by skilled
roasters. Workmanship
… has a higher
price/quality value.
… has a long tradition
and prestige.
1 – strongly
disagree
2 – disagree
3- neither
agree or
disagree
4 – agree
5 – strongly agree
12. When it comes to your identity and your feelings toward your own country, how much do
you agree with the following statements?
1–I
strongly
disagree
Being an Italian citizen means a lot to me.
I am proud to be an Italian citizen
Italy possess certain cultural attributes that
other cultures do not.
When a foreign person praises Italy, it
feels like a personal compliment.
10
2–I
disagree
3neither
agree or
disagree
4 – I agree
5–I
strongly
agree
13. What is your opinion on Made in Italy products?
1–I
strongly
disagree
2–I
3disagree indifferent
I’m proud that our products have such great prestige
abroad.
Made in Italy is what drives Italian economy.
Only the products that are unavailable in Italy
should be imported.
It may cost me in the long-run but I prefer to
support Italian products.
We should be proud and buy products
manufactured in Italy instead of letting other
countries get rich off us.
Italians should not buy foreign products, because
this hurts Italian business and causes
unemployment.
Lastly, we kindly ask you to provide some information about yourself.
14. Gender:
a) female
b) male
15. Age range:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
<= 18
19 – 25
26 – 35
36 – 45
46 – 60
60+
16. Please confirm your monthly household income:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
0 - 999€
1000 - 1999€
2000 - 2999€
3000 - 3999€
4000 -4999€
5000- 5999€
+ 6000 €
17. Education
a) middle school
b) high school
c) university
d) master
11
4–I
agree
5–I
strongly
agree
e) PhD
18. Traveling experience abroad:
a) sometimes
b) once per year
c) twice per year
d) three times per year
e) more than three times per year
APPENDIX C: Hypotheses H1, H3 and H4 outputs
Regression analysis results.
Table 1. Hypothesis H1, H3 and H4 SPSS outputs
Model
1
Model Summaryb
R Square
Adjusted R Square
R
,688a
,474
,458
a. Predictors: (Constant), CEthno_2, Patriotism, Superior_quality
b. Dependent Variable: DPB
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
1
a.
b.
c.
Regression
41,105
Residual
45,656
Total
86,761
Dependent Variable: DP
Predictors: (Constant), C
CEthno, Patriotism, Superior_quality,
Model
4
136
140
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients
(Constant)
Superior_quality
1
Patriotism
CEthno
a. Dependent Variable: DPB
B
-,098
,622
,011
,209
Std. Error
,325
,086
,059
,061
12
10,276
,336
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error of the
Estimate
,57940
F
Sig.
,000b
30,611
t
Sig.
Beta
,525
,013
,236
-,303
7,194
,186
3,395
,763
,000
,853
,001
APPENDIX D: Graphic results for H1, H3 and H4 output
Histogram and scatter plot of the multiple regression analysis
Figure 1. Histogram and scatterplot of H1, H3 e H4
13
APPENDIX E: Hypothesis H2 output
H2: A high perception of the Made in Italy image positively affects the perception of quality
of domestic coffee.
Regression analysis statistics and graphs.
Table 2. Hypothesis H2 SPSS outputs
Model Summaryb
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
a
1
,359
,129
,123
a. Predictors: (Constant), COO_image
b. Dependent Variable: Superior_quality
Model
Regression
ANOVAa
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
7,999
1
7,999
Std. Error of the
Estimate
,62323
F
20,594
Residual
53,990
139
,388
Total
61,989
140
a. Dependent Variable: Superior_quality
b. Predictors: (Constant), COO_image
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
2,540
,261
1
COO_image
,305
,067
,359
a. Dependent Variable: Superior_quality
Sig.
,000b
1
Figure 2. Histogram and scatter plot H2
14
t
Sig.
9,713
,000
4,538
,000
APPENDIX F: Hypothesis H5 output
of Italian coffee.
Table 3. Hypothesis H5a SPSS outputs
Group Statistics
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
sesso
Superior_quality
male
female
55
86
3,6409
3,7413
Std. Error
Mean
,62872
,68861
,08478
,07426
Independent Samples Test
Levene’s test for
t-test for Equality of Means
equal variances
F
Sign.
t
df
sig. (2tailed)
Superior_quality Equal variance
,053
,818 -,873
139
,384
122,743
,375
assumed
Equal variance not
-,891
assumed
H5b: There is a positive correlation between age and the superior quality perception
of Italian coffee.
Table 4. Hypothesis H5b SPSS outputs
Descriptives: Superior_quality
18 – 25
26 – 36
36 – 99
Total
N
Mean
41
62
38
141
3,6686
3,6797
3,8188
3,7143
Std. Deviation
,60681
,71612
,66744
,67108
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Superior_quality
Levene
df1
df2
Sig.
Statistic
15
Std. Error
,09254
,08952
,10553
,05535
,204
2
138
,816
ANOVA
Superior_quality
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
0,603
65,147
65,750
df
Mean Square
2
138
140
,302
,472
F
Sig.
0,639
,515
H5c: There is a positive correlation between income and the superior quality
perception of Italian coffee.
Table 5. Hypothesis H5c SPSS outputs
N
1,000 – 1,999
2,000 – 2,999
3,000 – 6,000+
Total
Mean
59
41
41
141
Std. Deviation
3,5779
3,7733
3,8488
3,7143
,70347
,59465
,67511
,67108
Std. Error
,09007
,09068
,10295
,05535
Superior_quality
Levene Statistic
df1
df2
Sig.
,297
2
138
,744
ANOVA
Superior_quality
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of Squares
2,063
63,687
65,750
df
Mean Square
2
1,032
138
,462
140
F
2,233
H5d: There is a positive correlation between education and the superior quality
perception of Italian coffee.
Table 6. Hypothesis H5d SPSS outputs
16
Sig.
,101
N
Middle & High school
University (Bachelor’s degree)
University (Master’s degree) & PhD
Total
Mean
42
28
71
141
Std. Deviation
3,6556
3,5603
3,8116
3,7143
Std. Error
,79467
,60376
,60349
,67108
,11846
,11212
,07063
,05535
Superior_quality
Levene
df1
df2
Sig.
Statistic
1,526
2
138
,221
ANOVA
Superior_quality
Sum of
Squares
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
df
1,534
64,216
65,750
Mean Square
2
138
140
0,767
,465
F
Sig.
1,649
H5e: There is a positive correlation between traveling experiences and the superior
quality perception of Italian coffee.
Table 7. Hypothesis H5e SPSS outputs
N
Sometimes
1 time per year
2 times per year
3 or more times per year
Total
59
27
31
24
141
Mean
3,6653
3,6000
3,7742
3,9063
3,7143
17
Std. Deviation
,58664
,86253
,63362
,64611
,67108
Std. Error
,07450
,15748
,11380
,13189
,05535
,183
Superior_quality
Levene
Statistic
1,321
df1
df2
3
Sig.
137
,270
ANOVA
Superior_quality
Sum of
Squares
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
df
1,536
64,214
65,750
Mean Square
3
137
140
F
,512
,468
Sig.
1,094
,335
APPENDIX G: Hypothesis H6 output
Patriotism
sesso
male
female
Group Statistics
N
Mean
Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
55
3,1364
,99631
,13434
86
3,1860
,90276
,09735
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
Patriotism not assumed
Sig.
,700
t
df
,404 -,306
139
,760
-,299
106,876
,765
H6b: There is a positive correlation between age and patriotic feelings.
Descriptives: Patriotism
18
Sig. (2tailed)
N
18 – 25
26 – 35
36 – 99
Total
Mean
41
62
38
141
Std. Deviation
3,0988
3,3320
3,0500
3,1871
Std. Error
,87821
,90857
1,00671
,93029
,13393
,11357
,15917
,07673
Patriotism
Levene Statistic
,820
df1
df2
138
2
Sig.
,442
ANOVA
Patriotism
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of Squares
2,431
123,924
126,355
df
Mean Square
2
1,216
138
,898
140
F
1,354
H6c: There is a positive correlation between income and patriotic feelings.
N
1,000 – 1,999
2,000 – 2,999
3,000 – 6,000+
Total
59
41
41
141
Mean
Std. Deviation
3,0533
3,2326
3,3314
3,1871
,95428
,91677
,90422
,93029
Patriotism
Levene Statistic
,023
df1
df2
2
Sig.
138
ANOVA
Patriotism
19
,977
Std. Error
,12218
,13981
,13789
,07673
Sig.
,247
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
2,077
124,279
126,355
df
Mean Square
2
138
140
1,038
,901
F
Sig.
1,152
,303
H6d: There is a positive correlation between education and patriotic feelings.
N
Middle school & High school
Total
Mean
45
29
73
147
Std. Deviation Std. Error
3,1056
3,3534
3,1712
3,1871
1,01199
,84915
,91275
,93029
,15086
,15768
,10683
,07673
Patriotism
Levene Statistic
,896
df1
2
df2
138
Sig.
,410
ANOVA
Patriotism
Sum of
Squares
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
df
1,120
125,235
126,355
Mean Square
2
138
140
,560
,907
F
Sig.
,617
,527
H6e: There is a positive correlation between traveling experiences and patriotic
feelings.
20
N
Sometimes
1 time per year
2 times per year
Total
Mean
59
27
31
24
141
3,2540
3,1667
3,1048
3,1458
3,1871
,89682
1,10706
,88923
,87202
,93029
,11390
,20212
,15971
,17800
,07673
Patriotism
Levene Statistic
df1
df2
Sig.
1,189
3
137
,316
ANOVA
Patriotism
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
,541
125,815
126,355
df
Mean Square
3
137
140
,180
,918
F
Sig.
,196
,893
APPENDIX H: Hypothesis H7 output
H7a: There is a positive correlation between female and consumer ethnocentrism.
sesso
CEthno
Group Statistics
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
male
female
55
86
3,0000
2,9360
,86736
,90601
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances
F
CEthno
Equal variances
assumed
Sig.
,055
21
Std. Error
Mean
,11695
,09770
t-test for Equality of
Means
t
,814 ,416
df
Sig. (2tailed)
139
,678
Equal variances
not assumed
,420
118,882
,675
H7b: There is a positive correlation between age and consumer ethnocentrism.
Descriptives: CEthno
N
18 – 25
26 – 35
36 – 99
Total
Mean
41
62
38
141
Std. Deviation
3,2465
2,8469
2,9300
2,9864
Std. Error
,70891
,92358
1,03433
,90981
,10811
,11545
,16354
,07504
CEthno
Levene Statistic
df1
3,564
df2
2
Sig.
138
,031
Robust Tests of Equality of Means
CEthno
Statistica
Welch
3,421
Brown-Forsythe
2,650
a. Asymptotically F distributed.
df1
2
2
df2
86,949
117,402
Sig.
,067
,075
H7c: There is a positive correlation between income and consumer ethnocentrism.
N
1,000 – 1,999
2,000 – 2,999
3,000 – 6,000+
Total
59
41
41
141
Mean
Std. Deviation
2,8918
3,0140
3,0930
2,9864
CEthno
22
,91256
,85009
,96939
,90981
Std. Error
,11684
,12964
,14783
,07504
Levene Statistic
1,283
df1
2
df2
138
Sig.
,280
ANOVA
CEthno
Sum of
Squares
1,067
119,785
120,853
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
df
Mean Square
2
138
140
F
,534
,868
Sig.
,615
,528
H7d: There is a positive correlation between education and consumer
ethnocentrism.
Descriptive: CEthno
N
Middle school & High school
Total
Mean
42
28
73
141
Std. Deviation
3,2711
2,9241
2,8356
2,9864
Std. Error
,93823
,81313
,89898
,90981
,13986
,15099
,10522
,07504
CEthno
Levene Statistic
,710
df1
df2
2
Sig.
138
,493
ANOVA
CEthno
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
5,420
115,433
120,853
df
Mean Square
2
138
140
2,710
,836
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: CEthno
23
F
3,241
Sig.
,037
Tukey HSD
(I) Education
Middle
School
& High school
(J) Education
Mean Difference (I-J)
University
Sig.
,34697
,43549*
,21320
,16969
,237
,030
-,34697
,21320
,237
,08852
-,43549*
,19653
,16969
,894
,030
-,08852
,19653
,894
University & PhD
Middle
School
University
& High school
University & PhD
Middle
School
University & PhD
& High school
University
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Std. Error
H7e: There is a positive correlation between traveling experiences and consumer
ethnocentrism.
N
Sometimes
1 time per year
2 times per year
Total
Mean
59
27
31
24
141
3,2710
2,6667
2,9677
2,6750
2,9864
,87748
,97745
,82639
,81468
,90981
,11144
,17846
,14842
,16629
,07504
CEthno
Levene Statistic
,463
df1
3
df2
137
Sig.
,709
ANOVA
CEthno
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
df
10,426
110,427
120,853
3
137
140
Mean Square
3,475
,806
F
4,311
Multiple Comparisons
24
Sig.
,005
Dependent Variable: CEthno
Tukey HSD
(I) Travelling
(J) Travelling
Mean
Difference (I-J)
1 time per year
,60430*
Sometimes
2 times per year
,30323
,59597*
Sometimes
-,60430*
1 time per year
2 times per year
-,30108
-,00833
Sometimes
-,30323
2 times per year
1 time per year
,30108
,29274
Sometimes
-,59597*
3 or more times per
1 time per year
,00833
year
2 times per year
-,29274
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
25
Std. Error
,19544
,19330
,21126
,19544
,22506
,24066
,19330
,22506
,23893
,21126
,24066
,23893
Sig.
,013
,400
,028
,013
,541
1,000
,400
,541
,612
,028
1,000
,612

country-of-origin effect on coffee purchase by italian consumers

Transcription

Similar documents

Professors at Kaldi`s Getting Coffee

Overview Brochure

Coopro Sanvito R.L.

Nescafé Espresso Instant Coffee Tin Features

Grab Coffee Breaker

ASK ABOUT TAP Coupons! - U-Stor

bosque nublado - Intelligentsia Coffee

ordering instructions mail order

the article.

Franchise Opportunities - World Franchise Centre